This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote: > Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> writes: >> Hello! >> >> We should simply use curr_insn instead of an ugly hack. >> >> 2010-11-02 ?Uros Bizjak ?<ubizjak@gmail.com> >> >> ? ? ? * config/mips/mips.md (call_internal): Pass curr_insn to >> ? ? ? mips_split_call. >> >> Compile tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu for mips-elf cross. > > Please do the call splitters too. ?OK with that change if it > passes regression testing. In addition to other call splitters, I noticed that mips_split_call copies CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE to splitted call_insn pattern. This is not necessary, since try_split will do that automatically (se emit-rtl.c, around line 3459). 2010-11-03 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> * config/mips/mips.md (call_internal): Pass curr_insn to mips_split_call. (call_internal_direct): Ditto. (call_value_internal): Ditto. (call_value_internal_direct): Ditto. (call_value_multiple_internal): Ditto. * config/mips/mips.c (mips_split_call): Do not copy CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE here. Attached patch was tested by building a cross to mips-elf. Unfortunatelly, I have no access to real mips target, so I would like to ask somebody if can do a regression test of attached patch. Uros.
Attachment:
m.diff.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |