On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches wrote: > When eyeballing the r12-440 / bd1cd0d0e0fe / "Remove > CC0" commit, I noticed parts that could be improved. > > Regarding the first change: at first I thought that just > removing the word "better" was the best choice, as the > compared part (cc0) was apparently removed, but the > paragraph after the one in the patch (still) does speak of > "implicit setting" (i.e. cc0-style), but now as hypothetical > reasoning. So, just add that to clarify what is not-better.
It is better to remove that hypothetical, imho. > Condition codes in GCC are represented as registers, s/,/./ and remove the rest of this paragraph? > -which provides better schedulability for > +which provides better schedulability than implicit clobbering for > architectures that do have a condition code register, but on which > most instructions do not affect it. The latter category includes > most RISC machines. > Condition codes in GCC are represented as registers, s/,/./ and remove the rest as well? > -which provides better schedulability for > +which provides better schedulability than implicit clobbering for > architectures that do have a condition code register, but on which > most instructions do not affect it. The latter category includes > most RISC machines. > The second change is just that there's no non-modern > representation, so the "Modern" qualifier is just confusing. That is just fine of course :-) I would commit such changes as obvious btw, so if you do so as well, you can blame me if anyone asks! Segher
