Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Denis wrote: > > I have converted the AVR port from CC0 to CCmode. > > But may be I have converted the port in wrong way. > > (It's because I was interested in *this* way.) > > > > I have used CCmode register and havn't added the > > '(clobber (reg:QI CC_REGNUM))' to any insn that really clobber the > > CC_REGNUM just because AVR is'n needed in scheduling. > > I think that sequence of compare + cond-jump will exists in any > > compiler pass. > > The port was successfully tested without new regressions. > > What do you (MAINTAINERS) think about this ? > > Interesting: > > - might you be able to post the resulting port files for review?
patch against cvs: http://home.overta.ru/users/denisc/cc0-ccmode/cc0-ccmode.patch.gz new port: http://home.overta.ru/users/denisc/cc0-ccmode/avr.tgz > - are you proposing that all conditional branches then required to be > explicitly paired with a corresponding immediately previous compare > instruction? I founded that GCC isn't break cmp+jump sequences. (My port havn't scheduling.) > (if so, how is this a good thing observing that it's fairly typical > for most conditional branches to be naturally based on comparisons > against 0 resulting from the immediately preceding operation, which > would have otherwise not required an explicit compare?) I think that it's not good. Denis.
