> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:matthew.fort...@imgtec.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:13 PM > To: Moore, Catherine; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' (gcc- > patc...@gcc.gnu.org); Eric Christopher (echri...@gmail.com) > Cc: Richard Sandiford; Rich Fuhler; Rozycki, Maciej; Myers, Joseph > Subject: RE: [PATCHv2][MIPS] Implement O32 ABI extensions (GCC) > > Moore, Catherine <catherine_mo...@mentor.com> writes: > > Review comments are attached. I will tackle the R6 patch next. > > Thanks, > > Catherine > > Thanks Catherine. Depending on whether the fix to the following hunk > needs discussion I'll make the changes and commit. > > >> static bool > >> mips_function_value_regno_p (const unsigned int regno) { > >> if (regno == GP_RETURN > >> || regno == FP_RETURN > >>+ || regno == FP_RETURN + 2 > >> || (LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE == 128 > >> && FP_RETURN != GP_RETURN > >> && regno == FP_RETURN + 2)) > >> return true; > >> > > Is this right? I'm not following the intent of this modification. > > The intent is to cover the complex return case where both FP_RETURN and > FP_RETURN+2 are used to return the real and imaginary parts of _Complex > float. The hunk which follows then deals with the _Complex double case > where the corresponding odd numbered registers are also used for FP32. > What I noticed when you first pointed me at this code on IRC was that the > new condition leads to the pre-existing LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE condition > being redundant so should be removed I think. I just want to re-read how > these functions are used to reassure myself this is all correct.
Okay, will you please add a comment here and for the next hunk? > > I'll also check on whether o32 or O32 is the consistent name and change > appropriately. > > For the R6 patch. I will be rebasing and updating that patch following > submission of FPXX but the only significant fix it needs relates to allowing > the > use of DSP with R6. That will affect the conditions on a few patterns and > some of the expand code. A general read through the current patch on the > list wouldn't be wasted though. > Thanks, Catherine
