Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/7/25 11:17 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Andrew Carlotti <andrew.carlo...@arm.com> writes:
>>> I forgot to include this in the earlier patch; is this ok for master (once
>>> the
>>> pass is merged, of course)?
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * doc/passes.texi: Document hardreg PRE pass.
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/passes.texi b/gcc/doc/passes.texi
>>> index
>>> 639f6b325c8be47bffd64269340c4dd8ea0f321c..5c2a174a7495404de48002f54902cce846e62b53
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/passes.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/passes.texi
>>> @@ -959,6 +959,11 @@ global constant and copy propagation.
>>> The source file for this pass is @file{gcse.cc}, and the LCM routines
>>> are in @file{lcm.cc}.
>>>
>>> +A third version of this pass is run on some targets to optimise
>>> assignments to
>>> +specific hard registers. This can be used in cases where a register has a
>>> +single purpose, such as specifying a mode as an extra input for specific
>>> +instructions (when these modes cannot be handled in the mode switching
>>> pass).
>>
>> LGTM, but how about adding ", @pxref{Mode switching optimization}" after
>> "mode switching pass"? (Untested.)
>>
>> OK with that change, or without if it doesn't work.
> I've got no significant concerns. So no objections from me.
Juse to be sure: my ok was just for the docs (wasn't clear, sorry),
rather than the pass itself. I was holding off reviewing the pass
because you're better placed than me.
It sounds like your ok is for the pass as well. Is that right?
Thanks,
Richard
