This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Broken private gcc port

Hi Paolo,

About 3 years ago I've sent a patch which was submitted by Kenneth
Zadeck on revision 153924 (See

Recently we tried to update our gcc port from gcc-4.4 to gcc-4.8 and
discovered that the same lines of code were changed, thus breaking our
private port. The offending change was submitted by you on revision
163854 and I found no information about the reasons for it in the
mailing lists.

I would appreciate if you could explain the rational for removing the
previous handling of zero_extract(mem(...)) in the set dest, and why
it was replaced by DF_REF_REG_USE while it looks to me as

There is a more general question here:
I can, of course, change it locally and my port would work. But the
change is not specific to my port, it's just that no other port
currently has zero-extract with mem destination. But if there ever be
one, it would benefit from my change. (and of course I'll benefit from
it when I update gcc version again, or if our private port ever become

So the question is - should I bother send such patches if no other
port is currently affected by them?  (when the changes are still
general in their nature)



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]