On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:57:13PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:11:28PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > > There is really no need to define a TLSmode mode iterator that is > > > identical (since !TARGET_64BIT == TARGET_32BIT) to the much used P > > > mode iterator. > > > > Nice :-) > > > > > It's nonsense to think we might ever want to support > > > 32-bit TLS on 64-bit or vice versa! The patch also fixes a minor > > > error in the call mems. All other direct calls use (call (mem:SI ..)). > > > > You can also replace <tls_abi_suffix> with <bits>, <tls_sysv_suffix> with > > <mode>, and l<tls_insn_suffix> with <ptrload>. Also, was "TLSmode:" > > needed anywhere? I don't see any other iterator used in those patterns. > > OK, done. TLSmode: was used in the tls insn pattern names and in the > output templates that now use ptrload. P: does just as well.
I mean that <P:xxx> is exactly the same as just <xxx> if there is only one iterator in the pattern. Doesn't matter as much with P as it did with a long name like TLSmode, of course :-) Segher
