Re: patch for prologue/epilogue generation

[Gunther Nikl <gni at gecko dot de>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:31:37PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:08, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > Could you please update the patch to accomodate the removal of NO_ADDSUB_Q?
> > It causes rejects now.
> 
> I've updated the patch. I'm very happy someone is going to test it.

  In the meantime I fixed the old patch because I couldn't wait to test the
  patch. It differs only in comments from your new version. Attached are two
  modifications.

> I can't currently test on a real m68k system, therefore I was quite
> worried my patch could break something.

  I compiled several testcases with an pre-patch 3.4 and a patched one. I
  compared the old code with the new code and everything looked fine. The
  additional +4 are now gone.

> If you can't run the GCC testsuite, please try it on a very large code
> base, both with and without -fomit-frame-pointer.

  I have no idea how to run the GCC testsuite let alone whether this would
  work on my non-unix m68k system.

> Back when I was debugging this code, I experienced subtle problems sneaking
> in a Linux kernel that could bootstrap almost perfectly despite the fact that
> some registers saved on the stack were being overwritten by local vars :-)

  My visual inspection didn't show such a problem.

> > Then there is another problem (at least for me): the first hunk of the
> > patch to m68k.c cannot be applied because the diff is missing the ^L
> > after override_options. This might be caused by the ML (I downloaded the
> > raw message from the ML)
> 
> This is a known KMail problem.

  Can't you use a "better" mua?

  Gunther

Attachment: d
Description: Text document