Re: [patch] cris: Move predicates to predicates.md.

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Saturday 02 April 2005 17:35, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Saturday 02 April 2005 12:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > (This far behind on mailing list reading!)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Kazu Hirata wrote:
> > > > > Attached is a patch to move predicates to predicates.md.
> > > > >
> > > > > Built cc1 for cris-elf.  OK to apply?
> > > >
> > > > No, at least not now.  Thank you for your work.  I'll take care
> > > > of it sooner or later, but I don't see a specific need for this
> > > > transition so this'll have to stand back for some other work.
> > >
> > > The specific reason is that GCC is trying to remove PREDICATE_CODES,
> > > thereby removing Yet Another Duplicated Interface in the machine
> > > descriptions.
> >
> > I know.  I just don't see a specific reason why I should do this
> > before other work,
>
> That is not what you said in your reply to kazu.  You just said:
> "I don't see a specific need for this transition".  Now you say
> you don't see a need _now_.

That's right: "not a *specific* need" or more to the point, "not
a (specific) need (right) now".  (See above.)  Sorry if the
choice of words confused you.

>  On the one hand I can understand
> this, because not all targets have been converted yet.  But on
> the other hand I don't understand it because the patch is here
> and ready right now, and as you say yourself:
>
> > because IIUC the PREDICATE_CODES vs.
> > predicates.md is a quite local change;
>
> ...so why not just approve the patch?

It hasn't been tested and there's other work to be done that'd
interfere with it and I need to check if there's another way to
do the C body.  The "local change" refers to GCC (as below), not
to the patch.

>  The reason you give:
>
> > it only affects
> > generators and generated code and it's not like it's blocking
> > other work in GCC.

No, that wasn't supposed to be the *reason* for not approving
the patch right now.  And I didn't *reject* the patch; I put it
on ice, to be used later.

I'd just repeat my earlier words if I addressed the rest of your
email so I'll try and stop the thread here.  It's inproductive
to defend and present a rationale for every action in detail,
and in this case it's not even you who wrote the patch you argue
about.

brgds, H-P