on 2021/6/4 上午12:12, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> From: Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> >> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 07:45:57 +0200 > >> on 2021/6/2 Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >>>> From: Kewen Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> >>>> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:04:54 +0200 >>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * config/cris/cris.md (*addi_reload): Fix empty split condition. > >>>> - "" >>>> + "&& 1" > >>> Ok, thanks, if only for all-round consistency. >>> >>> In preparation for a warning for an empty condition? I'm >>> usually all for .md-warnings, but I'm not sure about the >>> benefit of that one, though. Those "&& 1" look...hackish. >> >> Thanks! Yeah, the 01/11 patch aims to raise one error message >> for the define_insn_and_split whose split condition is empty >> while insn condition isn't. In most cases, when we write one >> define_insn_and_split we want the splitting only to take effect >> while we see the define_insn matching happen (insn cond holds), >> but if we leave the split condition empty, the splitting will >> be done always, it could result in some unexpected consequence. >> Mostly this is unintentional. > > It certainly was in the patch above! > >> The error message is to avoid >> people to make it unintentionally. >> >> As you may have seen from the discussion under the 00/11 thread, >> we will probably end up with some other solution, so I will hold >> the changes for the ports, sorry for wasting your time and the >> other port maintainers'. > > No worries: I certainly don't consider it wasted and I'd > prefer to have the patch above committed sooner than the > conclusion of that discussion. (If you don't get to it, > I'll do it, after a round of testing.) >
Thanks for your help on testing! > If you're considering further target patches to adjust for > eventually changed semantics in the define_insn_and_split > split-condition, then whatever trivial patch to cris.md that > gets the effect of the one you sent is preapproved. > OK, thanks again! BR, Kewen
