This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: define_constraints patch, re-revised
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:38:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: define_constraints patch, re-revised
- References: <20060227065229.GA18445@panix.com> <440343A0.7070205@t-online.de>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 07:23:28PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >:ADDPATCH machine description:
>
> :REVIEWMAIL:
>
> >+If you put the pseudo-Texinfo directive @samp{@@internal} at the
> >+beginning of a docstring, then (in the future) it will appear only in
> >+the internals manual's version of the machine-specific constraint
> >+tables. Use this for constraints that should not appear in @code{asm}
> >+statements. (The compiler itself is unaware of the distinction; this
> >+is not a way to give users a helpful diagnostic instead of a
> >+@code{reload} failure.)
>
> Can we say "The compiler may in the future use this to give a helpful
> diagnostic instead of a reload failure"?
Sure.
> >+#if 0
> >+{
> >+ " enum machine_mode mode = GET_MODE (op);\n"
> >+ " HOST_WIDE_INT ival = 0;\n"
...
> Lose this.
Oops! I meant to delete that before sending the patch. Thanks for
catching it.
> Otherwise ok, minus the h8300 changes - I'd prefer you get buyin and
> maybe testing from whoever is maintaining it.
Roger. I'll check in everything else tonight and resend that bit so
it can sit in the tracker with an appropriate category tag. Hopefully
by then the simulator run will be done so I can provide test results
too (it was still running when I got up this morning).
Thank you for reviewing.
zw