This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add `-mfix-r5900' option for the R5900 short loop erratum
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- To: Fredrik Noring <noring at nocrew dot org>
- Cc: Matthew Fortune <mfortune at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jürgen Urban <JuergenUrban at gmx dot de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:45:18 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add `-mfix-r5900' option for the R5900 short loop erratum
- References: <3124fcb08e433bc230f53fae9d0e7bd6998f8538.1541607095.git.noring@nocrew.org>
Hi Fredrik,
Thank you for your submission. Your change looks very good to me, except
for a bunch of minor nits in your proposed ChangeLog entry.
> * gcc/config/mips/mips.c (mips_reorg_process_insns)
> (mips_option_override): Default to working around R5900
> errata only if the processor was selected explicitly.
I think this only describes the `mips_option_override' part. ChangeLog
entries are best concise, so how about just:
* config/mips/mips.c (mips_reorg_process_insns)
(mips_option_override): Handle `-mfix-r5900'.
?
> * gcc/config/mips/mips.h: Declare `mfix-r5900' and
> `mno-fix-r5900'.
This has to be:
* config/mips/mips.h (ASM_SPEC): Add `mfix-r5900' and
`mno-fix-r5900'.
as you're adding to the ASM_SPEC definition. Also your patch lines are
way off and I had to seach for the place this change applies to -- have
you been using current upstream trunk with this change?
> * gcc/config/mips/mips.opt: Define MASK_FIX_R5900.
Likewise:
* config/mips/mips.opt (mfix-r5900): New option.
as it's an entry for `mfix-r5900' that you're adding.
> * gcc/doc/invoke.texi: Document the R5900, `mfix-r5900' and
> `mno-fix-r5900'.
It looks like missing bits, did you mean:
* doc/invoke.texi: Document the `r5900' processor name, and
`-mfix-r5900' and `-mno-fix-r5900' options.
?
All these entries apply to the gcc/ChangeLog rather than the top-level
one, so please drop the leading gcc/ part of the paths, and indicate it at
the beginning instead.
Please also fix indentation throughout; the subsequent lines of entries
are horizontally aligned with the asterisk above and not indented any
further.
Please resubmit your change with the ChangeLog entry updated.
Regrettably I have no authority to approve your submission, but hopefully
a maintainer will so that it can make it to GCC 9.
Maciej