Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:48:11PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> > So yeah, patch withdrawn. This on one hand is proof we do want to make >> > such a change, but on the other hand shows it needs more preparatory >> > steps. >> >> I wonder if it makes sense to provide ports a means to opt-in into >> the strict "&& " requirement and thus we can gradually fix them. >> Probably requires some t-$target make fragment editing plus >> passing an extra arg to gen* based on that. >> >> That way maintainers can gradually fix their ports and make sure >> they won't regress again. > > Just some target macro might be better / easier? Just gensupport.c will > need to use it. > > Will we still allow empty split conditions? And automatically make that > do the equivalent of "&& 1"?
Wouldn't that run the risk of the partial transition that my suggestion was rejected for? ;-) I think an empty define_insn_and_split split condition should continue to mean the same thing everywhere. So while we continue to have ports in which an empty condition means one thing, I don't think we should also have ports where an empty condition means something else. Thanks, Richard
