Jeff Law wrote: > First, there's a missing fallthru comment in spu_sched_reorder for > TYPE_LOAD/TYPE_STORE cases. If I'm reading the SPU docs properly a > load/store insn is handled by pipe_1 and we're also trying to model some > aspects of the load-store unit. So we should be setting pipe_ls and pipe_1: > > case TYPE_LOAD: > case TYPE_STORE: > pipe_ls = i; > case TYPE_LNOP: > case TYPE_SHUF: > case TYPE_BR: > case TYPE_MULTI1: > case TYPE_HBR: > pipe_1 = i; > break; > > This looks like intentional fallthru and should just have an appropriate > comment to silence the warning.
Agreed. > spu_legitimate_address looks far more interesting and I think it's buggy > as written: > > > case SUBREG: > x = XEXP (x, 0); > if (REG_P (x)) > return 0; > > case REG: > return INT_REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P (x, reg_ok_strict); > > I think the test is inverted. We want to consider (subreg (reg)) a > valid memory address and reject all other (subreg (...)) expressions. > But this code does the opposite. Oops, it looks like this has been broken since this commit: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01505.html > * config/spu/spu.c (spu_sched_reorder): Add missing fallthru comment. > (spu_legitimate_address_p): Fix logic error and add missing fallthru > comment. This is OK. Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
