On 8/5/19 12:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:14:50PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:48:46PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> First: do you have a copyright assignment? See >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html >>> for instructions. >> >> Nope, is this really substantial enough to warrant one? > > Some might say it is, the sheer amount of code changed :-) If some > maintainer okays it without assignment, that is fine with me of course. > > This is also easier if it is all machine-generated and nice simple > patches :-) If it's entirely machine generated and you don't want to do a copyright assignment, then the way to go will be for someone with an assignment to run the scripts and commit the change. Then we'd only need an assignment if we wanted the scripts in the repo.
> >>>> -/* Predicate yielding true iff X is an rtx for a double-int. */ >>>> +/* Predicate yielding true iff X is an rtx for a floating point constant. >>>> */ >>>> #define CONST_DOUBLE_AS_FLOAT_P(X) \ >>>> (GET_CODE (X) == CONST_DOUBLE && GET_MODE (X) != VOIDmode) >>> >>> Is const_double really only used for floating point these days? > >> Are you asking if the CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P possibility is dead code >> now? That's beyond my current level of understanding of the code, >> hopefully someone else will chime in. > > I am asking if the change to this comment is correct. I thought we used CONST_DOUBLE for scalar constants that are wider than a HOST_WIDE_INT, or perhaps wider than 2 HOST_WIDE_INTs. If that's still the case, then the comment change is wrong. Jeff
