> On 10/23/2015 11:31 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/23/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Dardis wrote:
> >
> >> Patch below. Target hook renamed to
> >> TARGET_NO_SPECULATION_IN_DELAY_SLOTS_P.
> >>
> >> Tested on mips-img-elf, no new regressions.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned this is ok, and IIUC Jeff wa
On 10/23/2015 11:31 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/23/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Dardis wrote:
Patch below. Target hook renamed to
TARGET_NO_SPECULATION_IN_DELAY_SLOTS_P.
Tested on mips-img-elf, no new regressions.
As far as I'm concerned this is ok, and IIUC Jeff was on board too. This
is assumin
On 10/23/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Dardis wrote:
Patch below. Target hook renamed to TARGET_NO_SPECULATION_IN_DELAY_SLOTS_P.
Tested on mips-img-elf, no new regressions.
As far as I'm concerned this is ok, and IIUC Jeff was on board too. This
is assuming the test included a bootstrap, otherwise pl
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 08 October 2015 20:44
> To: Simon Dardis; Bernd Schmidt
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH] Target hook for disabling the delay slot filler.
>
> On 09/18/2015 05:1
On 09/18/2015 05:10 AM, Simon Dardis wrote:
Are you trying to say that you have the option as to what kind of
branch to use? ie, "ordinary", presumably without a delay slot or one
with a delay slot?
Is the "ordinary" actually just a nullified delay slot or some form of
likely/not likely stati
> Are you trying to say that you have the option as to what kind of
> branch to use? ie, "ordinary", presumably without a delay slot or one
> with a delay slot?
> Is the "ordinary" actually just a nullified delay slot or some form of
> likely/not likely static hint?
Specifically for MIPSR6: t
