On 01/13/2012 04:31 AM, nick clifton wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> Not an ideal solution, since the availability of this pattern implies
>> it's extremely cheap, and we'll replace jumps to the epilogue with
>> this pattern.
>> Or to define an availability predicate similar to i386, testing if
>> the e
Hi Richard,
Not an ideal solution, since the availability of this pattern implies
it's extremely cheap, and we'll replace jumps to the epilogue with
this pattern.
Or to define an availability predicate similar to i386, testing if
the epilogue is trivial, and only a return insn is needed.
Somet
On 01/11/2012 10:39 PM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> +(define_expand "return"
> + [(return)]
> + ""
> + "rx_expand_epilogue (false); DONE;"
> +)
Not an ideal solution, since the availability of this pattern implies
it's extremely cheap, and we'll replace jumps to the epilogue with
this pattern.
A hac
Hi Guys,
I am checking in the patch below to fix a problem building the RX
port. Targets that define the "simple_return" pattern must also
define a "return" pattern. Otherwise gcc/function.c will fail to
build.
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2012-01-11 Nick Clifton
* config/rx
