This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [dataflow] Provide a blockage insn for targets that don't have it
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:52:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [dataflow] Provide a blockage insn for targets that don't have it
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=nIynj+AsDTocJTYnNgkqSMCh6jF3G7fXf0iF9mevfxCKb8+0Ei0uSraDiLdDnE8C24/t3YQFiPEgF0HnCxc2uK3STt/FS66DyAEzbfE2/5ED50XsdmhLa7CGX6QEzNpiycN0vM87suPw2ew0qfN5T4oZ3X70Ub6dpLYYkcqmA5A=
- References: <45DD534F.7070905@lu.unisi.ch> <m3mz368a3w.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <17885.57583.538440.63935@zebedee.pink>
On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:29, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@lu.unisi.ch> writes:
> > > This patch provides a gen_blockage routine for targets that don't have
> > > a blockage insn. This is implemented as a dummy `asm ("")'
> > > instruction. Unlike previous code that used ASM_INPUT in this way,
> > > this instruction is made volatile so that it is not deleted by the DCE
> > > pass.
> >
> > I don't have any particular objections to this patch, but does anybody
> > know why we have machine specific blockage insns? Isn't blockage a
> > relatively machine independent concept?
>
> I've never understood this either.
>
> Anyway, while we're talking about blockages, can you (or anyone)
> please have a look at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01143.html
>
> All this patch does is move a blockage insn to the right place.
Isn't one approval enough? ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01712.html
Gr.
Steven