This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas dot preudhomme at arm dot com>, "'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:48:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <00f001d044d4$23f37e20$6bda7a60$ at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1n0FZSdn4RqVHGmuoeA5+gb3MVxZheC0pFELWkRDO-mew at mail dot gmail dot com> <00f201d044d8$0131ccd0$03956670$ at arm dot com> <54DAF0CD dot 9030701 at redhat dot com> <00f401d045c5$f0853540$d18f9fc0$ at arm dot com>
On 02/10/15 23:42, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
generated code across a bootstrap.
Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for rs6000?
MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
backend's MD files.
It's certainly possible, but unlikely.
I would virtually guarantee that lm32, rx, & mep, rx, tilegx, tilegxpro
were never updated.
So another approach would be to build some cross tools and verify that
they generate the same code before/after ripping that code out.
That's probably how I'd approach gathering some data about whether or
not the comment/code is still appropriate/needed.
Do people with svn access automatically have access to the GCC farm or
does one needs to request such access?
You have to request access. IIRC, there's a big ppc64 machine in there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
Jeff