Many thanks for your prompt review, Maciej! > > * gcc/config/mips/mips.c (mips_reorg_process_insns) > > (mips_option_override): Default to working around R5900 > > errata only if the processor was selected explicitly. > > I think this only describes the `mips_option_override' part. ChangeLog > entries are best concise, so how about just: > > * config/mips/mips.c (mips_reorg_process_insns) > (mips_option_override): Handle `-mfix-r5900'. > > ?
Done! > > * gcc/config/mips/mips.h: Declare `mfix-r5900' and > > `mno-fix-r5900'. > > This has to be: > > * config/mips/mips.h (ASM_SPEC): Add `mfix-r5900' and > `mno-fix-r5900'. > > as you're adding to the ASM_SPEC definition. Yes, done! > Also your patch lines are > way off and I had to seach for the place this change applies to -- have > you been using current upstream trunk with this change? Hmm... I thought so, but obviously 2 November was a week old. I'm sorry about that, I have rebased v2 now. [ As mentioned in the commit message, the test was done with GCC 8.2.0 since there was an unrelated problem compiling some sanitizer component at the time. I will try to test a current GCC version during the weekend. ] > > * gcc/config/mips/mips.opt: Define MASK_FIX_R5900. > > Likewise: > > * config/mips/mips.opt (mfix-r5900): New option. > > as it's an entry for `mfix-r5900' that you're adding. Done! > > * gcc/doc/invoke.texi: Document the R5900, `mfix-r5900' and > > `mno-fix-r5900'. > > It looks like missing bits, did you mean: > > * doc/invoke.texi: Document the `r5900' processor name, and > `-mfix-r5900' and `-mno-fix-r5900' options. > > ? Yes, done! > All these entries apply to the gcc/ChangeLog rather than the top-level > one, so please drop the leading gcc/ part of the paths, and indicate it at > the beginning instead. Done! > Please also fix indentation throughout; the subsequent lines of entries > are horizontally aligned with the asterisk above and not indented any > further. Ah, yes, of course. > Please resubmit your change with the ChangeLog entry updated. > Regrettably I have no authority to approve your submission, but hopefully > a maintainer will so that it can make it to GCC 9. I will post v2 shortly. Let's hope for the best. Thanks again! Fredrik
