This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Clean up --param handling
- From: "Andreas Krebbel" <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:51:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: Clean up --param handling
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010091912010.10301@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Hi Joseph,
> However, some cases of
> set_param_value in s390_option_override are left unchanged; they
> could be deliberate because such unconditional uses are mixed with
> conditional ones. Perhaps the S390 maintainers could comment on
> whether the particular values set are indeed needed for correctness
> and so should override user-set values, or whether the remaining
> set_param_value cases should be using maybe_set_param_value.
> Index: config/s390/s390.c
> ===================================================================
> --- config/s390/s390.c (revision 165189)
> +++ config/s390/s390.c (working copy)
> @@ -1687,30 +1687,22 @@ s390_option_override (void)
...
> set_param_value ("max-pending-list-length", 256);
> /* values for loop prefetching */
> set_param_value ("l1-cache-line-size", 256);
There is no reason to set these values unconditionally here. They
should use maybe_set_param_value to be consistent with the other
parameters.
Bye,
-Andreas-