This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Rs6000 infrastructure cleanup (switches), revised patch
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com, segher at kernel dot crashing dot org, iain at codesourcery dot com, andreast-list at fgznet dot ch
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:04:06 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rs6000 infrastructure cleanup (switches), revised patch
- References: <20120912224303.GA19348@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20120917195131.GA22648@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Michael Meissner
<meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch has support for all of the additonal cleanups I mentioned in the
> first patch that I hadn't gotten to. At this point, I am not planning any more
> enhancements to the patch, and I would like to check it in.
>
> On my 64-bit powerpc system, there are 36 options in the main ISA flags fields,
> 23 options in the miscellaneous flags fields, and 8 options in the debug flag
> fields.
>
> I believe it answers the problems Ian had. I changed all of the debugging
> fprintf's to use HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX to print the numeric value of the
> flags fields, and I changed the #ifdef TARGET_<xxx> to #ifdef OPTION_<xxx>.
>
> It builds and bootstraps fine on my powerpc64 linux system and there were no
> regressions. It is ok to install?
Mike,
Thanks for working on this cleanup!
Is it possible to split out some parts of the patch to make it easier
to review and verify? Such as the debug parts? It looks like some
parts are independent.
Why do you use HOST_WIDE_INT instead of an explicit 64 bit type for the flags?
I am confident that it bootstraps and passes regression tests. But
how did you verify that it uses the correct defaults after the patch?
Thanks, David