This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC/CFT] Hookize TARGET_UNWIND_INFO and related macros
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, joseph at codesourcery dot com, sje at cup dot hp dot com, richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com, ktietz70 at googlemail dot com
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:40:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC/CFT] Hookize TARGET_UNWIND_INFO and related macros
- References: <4C87EF7D.9080801@redhat.com> <871v8kwuau.fsf@dirichlet.schwinge.homeip.net> <87hbf956dn.fsf@dirichlet.schwinge.homeip.net>
On 11/22/2010 02:40 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 2010-09-23 11:52, I wrote:
>> Redirected to this thread / proposal from
>> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01572.html>.
>>
>> On 2010-09-08 20:18, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> The following adds hooks that could replace all 4 macros
>>> with 2 target hooks.
>>
>> Yes, from a first reading of the patch it does seem like a sensible
>> approach. Unfortunately, the amount of time I'm able to dedicate to
>> toolchain issues is very limited at the moment, but I'll try to do some
>> testing for ARM in the following weeks, if your proposed patch is
>> generally considered the way to go.
>>
>> In case you want to check your new infrastructure against it, here are my
>> notes from 2010-03-31 when I analyzed this matter; the patch that meant
>> to achieve this is the one I quoted in
>> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01551.html>.
>
> Apparently you directly got it right -- and fixed the ARM bug alongside
> with committing the ``Hookize TARGET_UNWIND_INFO et al.'' changes on
> 2010-09-28. Now, I don't know if you meant to change the logic for ARM
> with that patch, but what you did is correct (in my scenario at least),
> so I can retire my original patch.
I believe I intentionally copied the logic from your patch.
Good to hear that I got it right.
r~