Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes:
> Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> writes:
>>> Something like the attached patch. Not tested yet, and I'm sure
>>> it'll break things in lots of fun and interesting ways...
>>
>> Mind posting a (temporarily) definitive version? I'll give it a whirl on
>> the
>> SPARC and IA-64 to see how it would fare.
>
> Thanks. With the s/MODE/CODE/ fix (attached) it passes bootstrap &
> regression test on x86_64-linux-gnu. I'll also try to some assembly
> diffs over a range of targets.
FWIW, I tried compiling gcc.c-torture, gcc.dg and g++.dg at -O2
for these targets:
alpha-linux-gnu arm-linux-gnueabi avr-rtems bfin-elf
cris-elf fr30-elf frv-linux-gnu h8300-elf ia64-linux-gnu
iq2000-elf lm32-elf m32c-elf m32r-elf m68k-linux-gnu
mcore-elf mep-elf microblaze-elf mips-linux-gnu mmix
mn10300-elf moxie-elf hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 pdp11 picochip-elf
powerpc-linux-gnu powerpc-eabispe rx-elf s390-linux-gnu
score-elf sh-linux-gnu sparc-linux-gnu spu-elf xstormy16-elf
v850-elf vax-netbsdelf xtensa-elf
It's a bit of a flawed exercise, because I don't have appropriate
system headers for most of them. But of the tests that did compile,
there were no differences in assembly output and no new ICEs.
Richard
