Re: rl78-elf: Compilation broken due to missing constraint
On Fri, 2013-07-12 04:42:26 +, Kaushik Phatak wrote: > > I guess you forgot a small patch to constraints.md, because since this > > commit which uses a new "U" constraint, the rl78-elf target won't > > build: > > 2013-05-31 Kaushik Phatak > > > > * config/rl78/rl78.md (mulqi3,mulhi3): New define_expands. > > (*mulqi3_rl78,*mulhi3_rl78,*mulhi3_g13): New define_insns. > > Yes, DJ did point out this missing constraint in my patch. I have posted this > and committed this patch last month itself, > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00643.html > > It does seem to have got submitted to gcc-cvs and I am able to see this > change when I do a svn update, > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-06/msg00409.html > > Please correct me if I am wrong on this. I think that you simply missed to commit the constraints.md part of the patch. Looking at SVN commit 199976 (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=199976), the changelog mentions the addition of the new "U" constraint, but the actual patch is missing it. And if you look at the gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org email that was caused by your commit, the constraints.md part is missing there, too. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481 Signature of: Zensur im Internet? Nein danke! the second : signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RE: rl78-elf: Compilation broken due to missing constraint
>> the changelog mentions the addition of the new "U" constraint, but the >> actual patch is missing it. Yes, I think you got it right. I have resubmitted this part of the patch again and confirmed the commit in svn. Best Regards, Kaushik
Question on the fwprop pass
Hi,
I encountered below example,
79: r169:SI=r190:SI<<0x2
115: r180:SI=r180:SI+r169:SI
116: cc:CC=cmp(r181:SI,r190:SI)
117: pc={(cc:CC==0)?L125:pc}
The register r169 is only defined by insn79, so I was hoping the
reference in insn115 can be replaced by "r190<<0x2", thus saving one
instruction and one live pseudo register.
Problem is fwprop pass doesn't do this now because function
propagate_rtx_1 only returns true if PR_CAN_APPEAR is set, which is
not in this case because of below code in propagate_rtx:
flags = 0;
if (REG_P (new_rtx)
|| CONSTANT_P (new_rtx)
|| (GET_CODE (new_rtx) == SUBREG
&& REG_P (SUBREG_REG (new_rtx))
&& (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode)
<= GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (new_rtx))
flags |= PR_CAN_APPEAR;
if (!for_each_rtx (&new_rtx, varying_mem_p, NULL))
flags |= PR_HANDLE_MEM;
if (speed)
flags |= PR_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED;
I did experiment by setting PR_CAN_APPEAR here but fwprop doesn't work
correctly any more.
So question is Why we don't do such transformation in fwprop pass and
how should this be handled?
Thanks very much.
--
Best Regards.
Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:11:11PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific > variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always > a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile. Not always. Any project large enough (or serious enough about build reproducibility) to include its own toolchain can be written in that compiler-version-specific subset and nonetheless be worked on by more than one person. This is not uncommon in the BSDs, for example; see instances of "WARNS=4". It's an uncommon use case (and, I think, not a justification for changing -Wall), but it does exist and it is useful. --Jed
$275+ CPA: Become a Binary Option Affiliate
Dear Affiliate, How are you? If you are interested in generous CPAs, please register now as affiliate on http://www.binaryaffiliates.com/?am=40 This month, we offer an additional $25 per trader, at the top of the regular $250, for one selected brand. Binary Options allow clients to profit, when they predict correctly if a stock/currency/commodity will go up or down. The time-frame for the prediction varies from 60 seconds to 60 minutes. That makes for a lot of fun and fast-paced action! I know your time is precious, so I'll keep it short. After you register on http://www.binaryaffiliates.com/?am=40 (it takes less than a minute!) please drop me an email, and we can start working on a fun, rewarding and PROFITABLE partnership! And I can activate the $15 additional reward for you. Thanks and best regards, Roger Binary Affiliates Recruitment Manager
GCC Re-architecture BOF
In case anyone is planning to attend the BOF on Sunday and missed the proposal document posted last month, it can be found here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AndrewMacLeod?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=gccrestructureplan2.1.pdf Andrew
