On 2012-10-17 10:31, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> - What would a good naming scheme be?
> - Change the semantics of the HAVE_pattern macros for officially named
> patterns so that they are defined as 0 when the pattern is not provided?
> That choice would actually force people to change #ifdef
On 2012-10-18 00:39, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Note: for patterns that involve a machine mode, I think it's better to
> generate a macro (or function) that takes the mode as a parameter. This
> is because most references to modes such as SImode or DFmode in
> architecture-independent code are in
On 2012-10-17 10:31, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> - What would a good naming scheme be?
> - Change the semantics of the HAVE_pattern macros for officially named
> patterns so that they are defined as 0 when the pattern is not provided?
> That choice would actually force people to change #ifdef
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> - Change the semantics of the HAVE_pattern macros for officially named
>patterns so that they are defined as 0 when the pattern is not provided?
>That choice would actually force people to change #ifdef into if (),
>without the possibility
Sorry for the recent loop-doloop.c breakage. I did test it, but I didn't take
a day to re-test it the two hundred configurations in config-list.mk and
sift out the pre-broken ports; as i had only changed 'target-independent'
code since the last full test, I only tested in on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Wh
