Hi!
As I said in a reply to the original patch: not okay. Sorry.
But some comments on this patch:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:23:35PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> + && XINT (SET_SRC (set), 1) == UNSPEC_TIE
> + && XVECEXP (SET_SRC (set), 0, 0) == const0_rtx);
This makes it required that the operand of an UNSPEC_TIE unspec is a
const_int 0. This should be documented somewhere. Ideally you would
want no operand at all here, but every unspec has an operand.
> + RTVEC_ELT (p, i)
> + = gen_rtx_SET (mem, gen_rtx_UNSPEC (BLKmode, gen_rtvec (1, const0_rtx),
> + UNSPEC_TIE));
If it is hard to indent your code, your code is trying to do to much.
Just have an extra temporary?
rtx un = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (BLKmode, gen_rtvec (1, const0_rtx), UNSPEC_TIE);
RTVEC_ELT (p, i) = gen_rtx_SET (mem, un);
That is shorter even, and certainly more readable :-)
> @@ -10828,7 +10829,9 @@ (define_expand "restore_stack_block"
> operands[4] = gen_frame_mem (Pmode, operands[1]);
> p = rtvec_alloc (1);
> RTVEC_ELT (p, 0) = gen_rtx_SET (gen_frame_mem (BLKmode, operands[0]),
> - const0_rtx);
> + gen_rtx_UNSPEC (BLKmode,
> + gen_rtvec (1, const0_rtx),
> + UNSPEC_TIE));
> operands[5] = gen_rtx_PARALLEL (VOIDmode, p);
I have a hard time to see how this could ever be seen as clearer or more
obvious or anything like that :-(
Segher
