This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING! [PATCH, RFA] Remove LABEL_NEXTREF and TARGET_ADJUST_UNROLL_MAX from the SH backend
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Joern RENNECKE <joern dot rennecke at st dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:37:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: PING! [PATCH, RFA] Remove LABEL_NEXTREF and TARGET_ADJUST_UNROLL_MAX from the SH backend
- References: <4411CE85.2050105@st.com>
Hello,
> >Anyway, that's not really interesting as far as I'm concerned, all
> >I really wanted to do is remove LABEL_NEXT_REF. That's orthogonal
> >to removing TARGET_ADJUST_UNROLL_MAX. So if you'd like to keep
> >that hook, then let's leave it there.
> >
> >Leaving it means the reference to LABEL_NEXTREF stays too, but I
> >guess that's OK because the hook as it is implemented in the SH
> >backend also refers to other stuff that doesn't exist anymore in
> >the compiler (e.g. struct loop_ivs, struct iv_class).
> >
> >
> Yes. The code might not compile in the current sources as it is, but at
> least it
> gives an outline what has to be done when we get suitable support
> infrastructure
> back in place.
sorry, but this is no argument for leaving it there; if anyone wants
this "inspiration", he may check out the version before removing it
from SVN (in fact, he may even prefer to check out the version before
removing unroll.c, to see how it really used to work in practice).
I think the general policy is not to keep pieces of dead code in gcc
(as well as other code that could be only potentially be useful sometime
in the future). Especially in case like this one -- the time since the
removal of unroll.c tells something about how crucial this piece of code
is and how eager everyone is to have it replaced.
Zdenek