Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-29 Thread DJ Delorie
Excellent. Thanks!

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-29 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/28/2011 12:28 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > Ping? Anything else for this? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02178.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01467.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01356.html Not that I know of. As far as I'm concerned yo

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-28 Thread DJ Delorie
Ping? Anything else for this? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01467.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01356.html

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-21 Thread DJ Delorie
> "rl" > "rs", mind sorting this in? Oops. I'd been putting RL78 before RX for so long it seemed natural (it's been powerpc so far, which doesn't come between rl78 and rx) > > Index: gcc/doc/extend.texi > > === > > -the SPU and M32

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-19 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, DJ Delorie wrote: > Index: MAINTAINERS > === > rs6000 port Geoff Keating geo...@geoffk.org > rs6000 port David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com > rs6000 vector extns Aldy Hernandez

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-15 Thread DJ Delorie
> Otherwise the port is looking ok. What else need I do for this port?

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-10 Thread DJ Delorie
> Didn't we find another way to fix this? In any case this is > not present in your changelog. Yes, please ignore that. I do "svn diff" and then have to cut out all the bits that aren't part of the base port itself.

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-10 Thread Richard Henderson
> +# non-PIC targets always get an array-bounds error in > thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns > +function.o-warn = -Wno-error Didn't we find another way to fix this? In any case this is not present in your changelog. Otherwise the port is looking ok. r~

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-08 Thread DJ Delorie
> > (define_expand "umulqihi3" > > [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand") > > (mult:HI (zero_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand")) > > (zero_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 2 "register_operand"] > > "0" > > "" > > ) > > Just delete it? No, we ac

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-05 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/04/2011 10:09 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > The problem I'm trying to solve with that is that there's only one > segment register (ES) so you only need to force an operand non-far if > *both* operands are far. Not sure if the function is implemented that > way, but I coded the expanders that way.

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-04 Thread DJ Delorie
> > (define_expand "zero_extendqihi2" > > [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand") > > (zero_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand")))] > > "" > > "if (rl78_force_nonfar_2 (operands, gen_zero_extendqihi2)) > > DONE;" > > ) > > You should be a

Re: New port^2: Renesas RL78

2011-11-04 Thread Richard Henderson
> (define_expand "zero_extendqihi2" > [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand") > (zero_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand")))] > "" > "if (rl78_force_nonfar_2 (operands, gen_zero_extendqihi2)) > DONE;" > ) You should be able to simply rl78_