On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:07 PM Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > Many thanks. As promised, here's a clean-up patch that removes the last > direct > call to targetm.truly_noop_truncation from the middle-end, allowing this hook > at some point in the future to take modes instead of sizes. > > middle-end: Prefer TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P over raw target hook. > > This patch has been tested with "make bootstrap" and "make -k check" on > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no regressions.
OK. Richard. > 2020-07-16 Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> > > gcc/ChangeLog > * function.c (assign_parm_setup_block): Use the macro > TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P instead of calling > targetm.truly_noop_truncation directly. > > Ok for mainline? > > Thanks again, > Roger > -- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > Sent: 14 July 2020 15:17 > To: Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> > Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Provide expanders for truncdisi2 and friends. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:50 PM Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> > wrote: > > > It seems to be improving TARGET_TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION documentation might > > > be useful here. > > This is an excellent suggestion. How about the following/attached... > > > > > The only user (after your patch) of this hook is in function.c for the > > > function parameter setup btw. > > > > The targetm.truly_noop_truncation in assign_parm_setup_block is the > > last place that calls this hook directly (with sizes), but the > > majority of uses go via TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P as defined in > > machmode.h. > > > > I'll prepare a patch to switch function.c to use > > TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODE_P so that we are consistent throughout the > > compiler. In theory, this hook could then be changed to take modes > > instead of (poly_unit64) sizes, but that clean-up might be tricky without > > access to the affected platforms. > > > > Is the above documentation change Ok for mainline? > OK. > > Thanks, > Richard. > > > Thanks, > > Roger > > -- > >
