Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes: > Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> writes: >> I dont like this at all. At the very least, if we go this way, >> then all places where next_active_insn is used should be updated. >> Otherwise this is just confusion proliferation. > > You mean all places where next_active_insn is used to get the jump table? > That would be fine with me, but as author of the original change, > I'm going to ask you to do that if you feel strongly about it :-) > Otherwise Steve's patch seems fine to me. > >> Before my patch most >> ports used the "active" variants and I specifically did non fix the >> "real" variants. It is marked fixme for a reason: The JUMP_TABLE_DATA >> should always follow immediately after the label. Copying the fixme is >> a step in the wrong direction. Please do not commit this patch! > > But you didn't respond to my main point. It always used to be the > case that all "active" insns were also "real". I.e. "real" was a > _more_ restrictive condition than "active".
Gah, I really wish proof reads before hitting "send" were as effective as those after. Obviously that should read: "active" was a _more_ restrictive condition than "real". Richard
