On 2013/12/28 02:29 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 13/12/23 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Other than these two, I think this can go in.
Bernd
>> Attached is the updated patch for the compiler.
>>
>> Since Bernd is a Global Reviewer, am I clear for committing the port
>> now? (including t
On 13/12/23 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Other than these two, I think this can go in.
>> > Bernd
> Attached is the updated patch for the compiler.
>
> Since Bernd is a Global Reviewer, am I clear for committing the port
> now? (including the testsuite and libgcc parts)
I will be taking Ber
On 11/26/2013 07:45 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> +(define_insn "movhi_internal"
> + [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=m, r,r, r,r")
> +(match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "rM,m,rM,I,J"))]
Didn't you say you'd removed the J alternative?
> +error ("only registe
Ping x3.
On 13/12/10 12:57 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping x2.
>
> On 2013/12/5 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On 2013/11/26 02:45 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Hi Bernd,
>>> I've updated the patch again, please see if it looks fit for approval
>>> now. Including ChangeLog again
Ping x2.
On 2013/12/5 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 2013/11/26 02:45 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi Bernd,
>> I've updated the patch again, please see if it looks fit for approval
>> now. Including ChangeLog again for completeness.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chung-Lin
>>
>> 2013-11-26 Ch
Ping.
On 2013/11/26 02:45 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
> I've updated the patch again, please see if it looks fit for approval
> now. Including ChangeLog again for completeness.
>
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
>
> 2013-11-26 Chung-Lin Tang
> Sandra Loosemore
> Based
On 13/11/22 10:31 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> If you don't object, I'll keep the clobbers there for now.
>
> If they serve no purpose (and I think they don't), they should go.
I'll check again, but I remember df_regs_ever_live_p doesn't include the
RA reg if the call pattern doesn't have the clob
On 11/16/2013 11:01 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> My response to the various issues you raised are below. The new patch
> has been re-tested. Please see if you can approve for committing now.
I agree with all the comments Richard has been making, so I'll just add
a few other points.
> If you don't
On 2013/11/21 03:25 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 02:41 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> I'm not saying we tolerate "wrong" RTL form, but rather that, it should
>> be an issue of the RTL passes, not the backend. The backend should just
>> be as much as possible, a "machine description".
On 11/21/2013 02:41 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> I'm not saying we tolerate "wrong" RTL form, but rather that, it should
> be an issue of the RTL passes, not the backend. The backend should just
> be as much as possible, a "machine description".
Matching non-canonical rtl does nothing but slow dow
On 13/11/21 7:21 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>> +;; Integer logical Operations
>> +
>> +(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
>> +(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and"
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
> +;; Integer logical Operations
> +
> +(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
> +(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and") (ior "or") (xor "xor")])
> +
> +(define_insn
On 13/11/20 1:34 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Chung-Lin Tang writes:
+;; Integer logical Operations
+
+(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
+(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and") (ior "or") (xor "xor")])
+
+(define_insn "si3"
+ [(set (match_opera
Chung-Lin Tang writes:
>>> +;; Integer logical Operations
>>> +
>>> +(define_code_iterator LOGICAL [and ior xor])
>>> +(define_code_attr logical_asm [(and "and") (ior "or") (xor "xor")])
>>> +
>>> +(define_insn "si3"
>>> + [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r,r,r")
>>> +
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Okay, then. I've updated the GCC backend patch to put the
> TARGET_INITIALIZER stuff at the end. I've shuffled some of the routines
> to reduce the starting forward declarations, though some do remain.
>
> The ChangeLog is the same, so I haven't dupli
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> +/* Local prototypes. */
> >
> > I'd much prefer not to have any of those. Achieve this by putting
> >> +struct gcc_target targetm = TARGET_INITIALIZER;
> > along with all the necessary definitions at the end of the file (and
> > reordering some ot
On 07/14/2013 09:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi, the last ping of the Nios II patches was:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01416.html
>
> After assessing the state, we feel it would be better to post a
> re-submission of the newest patches.
Since this hasn't attracted attention
On 09/02/13 13:23, Sebastian Huber wrote:
what is the blocking point for GCC integration? It was accepted by the SC and
all issues of the last review have been addressed (at least this is my
impression). Is it that none of the persons with global write permission seems
to be responsible?
Tha
Hello,
what is the blocking point for GCC integration? It was accepted by the SC and
all issues of the last review have been addressed (at least this is my
impression). Is it that none of the persons with global write permission seems
to be responsible? The Binutils port is available since
Ping.
On 13/8/20 10:57 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping.
>
> BTW, the SC has approved the Nios II port already:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-07/msg00434.html
>
> The port is still awaiting technical review.
>
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
>
> On 13/7/14 下午3:54, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi, the las
Ping.
BTW, the SC has approved the Nios II port already:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-07/msg00434.html
The port is still awaiting technical review.
Thanks,
Chung-Lin
On 13/7/14 下午3:54, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi, the last ping of the Nios II patches was:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/20
21 matches
Mail list logo
