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]

Re: [patch, mips] Fix for PR target/56942

Steven Bosscher <> writes:
> I dont like this at all.      At the very least, if we go this way,
> then all places where next_active_insn is used should be updated.
> Otherwise this is just confusion proliferation.

You mean all places where next_active_insn is used to get the jump table?
That would be fine with me, but as author of the original change,
I'm going to ask you to do that if you feel strongly about it :-)
Otherwise Steve's patch seems fine to me.

> Before my patch most
> ports used the "active" variants and I specifically did non fix the
> "real" variants. It is marked fixme for a reason: The JUMP_TABLE_DATA
> should always follow immediately after the label. Copying the fixme is
> a step in the wrong direction. Please do not commit this patch!

But you didn't respond to my main point.  It always used to be the
case that all "active" insns were also "real".  I.e. "real" was a
_more_ restrictive condition than "active".  Having insns that are
"active" but not "real" is a change to the interface and also
(IMO) doesn't make much sense in terms of English usage.

Don't get me wrong: I like the change to use something other
than JUMP_INSN to store the jump table, and thanks for making it.
I just don't think we should "break" the next_*_insn hierachy at
the same time.


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