On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:14:50PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:48:46PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > First: do you have a copyright assignment? See > > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html > > for instructions. > > Nope, is this really substantial enough to warrant one?
Some might say it is, the sheer amount of code changed :-) If some maintainer okays it without assignment, that is fine with me of course. This is also easier if it is all machine-generated and nice simple patches :-) > > This is easier to review, and even to commit as obvious, if you did a > > patch per macro, certainly for the new macros; and, put the script in > > contrib/, and then say with every patch that is just the output of the > > script that that is the case. > > Ok, I can split it up that way. Thanks! > > Please mention the exact macros you now use, and/or the actual rtx codes. > That'll be easier once its split up by macro. I'll combine the backend + > target code into one patch per macro. Looking forward to it. In general, writing changelogs for simpler patches is easier :-) > > > * gcc/config/rx/constraints.md, gcc/config/rx/rx.c, gcc/config/rx/rx.h: > > > Likewise. > > > > And you normally have a separate entry for every file. > > I tried to make the changelog a bit shorter by combining filenames into > the same line-- should be easier all around to generate that with one entry > per file. Yeah. > > > -/* Predicate yielding true iff X is an rtx for a double-int. */ > > > +/* Predicate yielding true iff X is an rtx for a floating point > > > constant. */ > > > #define CONST_DOUBLE_AS_FLOAT_P(X) \ > > > (GET_CODE (X) == CONST_DOUBLE && GET_MODE (X) != VOIDmode) > > > > Is const_double really only used for floating point these days? > Are you asking if the CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P possibility is dead code > now? That's beyond my current level of understanding of the code, > hopefully someone else will chime in. I am asking if the change to this comment is correct. Thanks, Segher
