On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:17:16PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: >> The change to rs6000_emit_move() really should have been in a helper >> function. We have to stop adding to the complexity of the function. I >> won't insist that you split it out, but any addition of more than a >> few lines in rs6000_emit_move(), prologue or epilogue should be placed >> into a separate function. > > I can certainly move it into a static helper function (the code in > rs6000_emit_move is only 20 lines once you eliminate the comments), but did > you > want me to move some of the other special case parts that are in the same > region to their own helper functions? I suspect this should be a GCC 8 work > item, but since I'm already moving stuff around, it would be simple to do it > now while I'm in the code. > > These include support for block moves, thread local moves, splitting up > 128-bit > IBM double double constants, and all of the decimal reload gunk.
Mike, I am not requesting that you split out any other pieces. This isn't the right time for general cleanups. During stage 3, if we add new pieces, we can set the precedent of better design. Thanks, David
