On 10/19/2012 02:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
How do you want to move forward with the VLE patch? Can you localize
more of the changes?
David, I have been distracted by other tasks. I expect to revisit VLE this
week. However, I won't be able to invest much more time on VLE. I'll look
at wha
Jim,
How do you want to move forward with the VLE patch? Can you localize
more of the changes?
Thanks, David
Jim,
This version of the VLE support patch is an improvement, although I
still am troubled by the number of changes to rs6000.md.
And can you suggest any way to re-factor rs6000_rtx_costs()?
Andrew suggested placing all of the patterns in vle.md independently
and without my prompting. VLE reall
;; Return 1 if op is an operand that can be loaded via the GOT.
-;; or non-special register register field no cr0
(define_predicate "got_operand"
(match_code "symbol_ref,const,label_ref"))
Most likely should be submitted and committed (as obvious) separately.
Yes, will do.
switch
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:59 AM, James Lemke wrote:
> Ping..
> @@ -847,7 +1106,6 @@
> && (DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_AIX || SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P
> (op))")))
>
> ;; Return 1 if op is an operand that can be loaded via the GOT.
> -;; or non-special register register field no cr0
>
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > 2012-09-10 Maciej W. Rozycki
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (print_operand) <'c'>: Remove.
> > * config/rs6000/spe.md: Remove a leftover comment.
>
> Okay.
I have applied this change now, thanks for your review
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > 2012-09-10 Maciej W. Rozycki
> > >
> > > gcc/
> > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (print_operand) <'c'>: Remove.
> > > * config/rs6000/spe.md: Remove a leftover comment.
> >
> > Okay.
>
> This patch wasn't sent to gcc-pa
2012-09-10 Maciej W. Rozycki
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (print_operand) <'c'>: Remove.
* config/rs6000/spe.md: Remove a leftover comment.
Okay.
This patch wasn't sent to gcc-patches -- can we see it please?
Segher
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki
wrote:
> David,
>
>> The %c print_operand modifier was added by Aldy for a pattern that he
>> added in 2004 and removed the same year. However, he did not remove
>> the modifier.
>
> Indeed -- introduced with r80876 and then removed in r84775 --
On 09/07/2012 07:52 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative impact on
the current PowerPC port. The patch is not going to
On 09/08/12 00:52, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative impact on
the current PowerPC port. The patch is not going to be a
Jim,
It is unfortunate that you did not discuss your plans to implement VLE
with me during the design phase.
This patch contains a lot of unnecessary, gratuitous changes in
addition to being very invasive. It was not edited and cleaned
sufficiently before posting. It has too much of a negative
On 09/06/2012 07:07 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The -t* options added duplicate -mcpu= options; the only existing
precedent appears to be arm-vxworks and I don't think the options are
appropriate for generic PowerPC target files (not specific to an OS port
such as VxWorks with its own special sele
On 09/06/2012 06:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Could you explain why you are changing system.h ?
That was a convenience to me at one point.
It should have been deleted from the patch set.
--
Jim Lemke
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
Orillia Ontario, +1-613-963-1073
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, James Lemke wrote:
> Attached are the patches for this gcc port.
>
> On a recent checkout (r191027) I have run the DejaGNU suite with no new
> failures for binutils, gas, ld, gcc, g++, gfortran. A bootstrap is in
> progress.
The -t* options added duplicate -mcpu= options; th
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > You mean this:
> >
> > + POWERPC_E200_MASK = MASK_VLE | MASK_ISEL | MASK_MULTIPLE
> >
> > ? Well, this just marks that the e200 processor supports ISEL regardless
> > of the mode selected (standard vs VLE). Then with -mvle ISEL is supposed
> > to be
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki
wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
>> Could you explain why you are changing system.h ?
>> Also seems like TARGET_VLE_ISEL should not be needed TARGET_ISEL is
>> always set for VLE targets.
>
> You mean this:
>
> + POWERPC_E200_M
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Could you explain why you are changing system.h ?
> Also seems like TARGET_VLE_ISEL should not be needed TARGET_ISEL is
> always set for VLE targets.
You mean this:
+ POWERPC_E200_MASK = MASK_VLE | MASK_ISEL | MASK_MULTIPLE
? Well, this just marks t
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM, James Lemke wrote:
> Attached are the patches for this gcc port.
>
> On a recent checkout (r191027) I have run the DejaGNU suite with no new
> failures for binutils, gas, ld, gcc, g++, gfortran. A bootstrap is in
> progress.
Could you explain why you are changing
19 matches
Mail list logo
