Hi Richard,
is the attached patch ok for ARM?
Bye,
-Andreas-
2012-12-12 Andreas Krebbel
* target.def: Define canonicalize_comparison hook.
* targhooks.h (default_canonicalize_comparison): New prototype.
* targhooks.c (default_canonicalize_comparison): New function.
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:15 +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 11/12/12 10:16, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> > Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >> urgs - I'll fix this. Is the patch ok with that change for sh?
> >
> > Yes, the sh portion is OK with that change, though it would be better
> > to fix the users of sh_
On 11/12/12 10:16, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> urgs - I'll fix this. Is the patch ok with that change for sh?
>
> Yes, the sh portion is OK with that change, though it would be better
> to fix the users of sh_canonicalize_comparison instead of its wrapper
> as pointed out by rth
Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> urgs - I'll fix this. Is the patch ok with that change for sh?
Yes, the sh portion is OK with that change, though it would be better
to fix the users of sh_canonicalize_comparison instead of its wrapper
as pointed out by rth and oleg.
Regards,
kaz
On 11/12/12 00:12, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
>> ===
>> *** gcc/config/sh/sh.c.orig
>> --- gcc/config/sh/sh.c
> [snop]
>> ! static void
>> sh_canonicalize_comparison (enum rtx_code& cmp,
Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
> ===
> *** gcc/config/sh/sh.c.orig
> --- gcc/config/sh/sh.c
[snop]
> ! static void
> sh_canonicalize_comparison (enum rtx_code& cmp, rtx& op0, rtx& op1,
> !
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 11:22 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:50 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > Ok. Here is an updated version trying to address the comments above.
> >
> > 2012-12-10 Andreas Krebbel
> >
> > * target.def: Define canonicalize_comparison hook.
> > * targ
On 12/10/2012 01:50 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Ok. Here is an updated version trying to address the comments above.
>
> 2012-12-10 Andreas Krebbel
>
> * target.def: Define canonicalize_comparison hook.
> * targhooks.h (default_canonicalize_comparison): New prototype.
> * ta
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 01:16:16AM +0100, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 13:37 -0600, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 2012-12-06 02:25, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > > ! targetm.canonicalize_comparison ((int*)&compare_code, &op0,
> > > &op1, 1);
> >
> > The basic approach seems s
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 13:37 -0600, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-12-06 02:25, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > ! targetm.canonicalize_comparison ((int*)&compare_code, &op0, &op1, 1);
>
> The basic approach seems sound. But this cast is distinctly uncool.
>
> And why the unused return value?
On 2012-12-06 02:25, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> ! targetm.canonicalize_comparison ((int*)&compare_code, &op0, &op1, 1);
The basic approach seems sound. But this cast is distinctly uncool.
And why the unused return value? If you didn't need it, why add it?
r~
Hi,
the attached patch fixes a problem I encountered with Richards patch
adding an extvz expander to the s390 backend.
According to its definition the CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON macro is
allowed to modify the two operands as well as the comparison code in
order to make a comparison valid or more eff
12 matches
Mail list logo
