Re: heads up new sub-port e500 v2

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

On 21/10/2004, at 3:48 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:03:30PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > On 19/10/2004, at 3:13 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > Stage 3 is open to new ports that do not add extra functionality.  As
> > > such, I will be adding support for a new variant of the e500.
> >
> > Although it's open for new entire chip ports, ports that affect an
> > existing machine description (like, say, the rs6000 one), are not
> > automatically acceptable.  It would depend on how likely the changes
> > are to break the current functionality.
> >
> > (For example, new patterns that require TARGET_E500V2 are fine.  
> > Adding
> > "&& ! TARGET_E500V2" to existing patterns is fine.  A complete new
> > scheduling description is probably fine.  Changing the rs6000 move
> > expander is not so fine.)
>
> I believe the sub-port falls into these categories.
>
> The most intrusive changes I see are changing a few define_insn's to
> define_expands so as to support both an e500v2 version, and a classic
> ppc version.
>
> All other changes seem to be !TARGET_E500V2 and !TARGET_E500V2 related.
>
> Is this acceptable?

It would depend on the exact changes, could you post a patch?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature