This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][i386]Fix PR 57756
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- Cc: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Steve Ellcey <sellcey at mips dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:22:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][i386]Fix PR 57756
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD_=9DRW+3ZrSa8mqqCdLrSHODHeKzx6uUV4EkgX6O1EQaOm9Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <1382027306 dot 2558 dot 16 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <20131017165206 dot GA25894 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <CAAs8Hmz2iRtgbPVBqSqvU+1XHbChhzigHmXEscU6rPrbMDYysg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:23:27AM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> I would need the help of target maintainers to fix it this way since
> it touches every target and it would take time for me to build and
> test every target.
> Michael, OTOH, I dont see any other targets other than i386 and rs6000
> (grepping for "specific_save" and "specific_restore") using
> function_specific save and restore functions. Would it be easier then
> to just add back that line to "opth-gen.awk"?,the patch is below.
> Since, they are not using function specific opts, they presumably
> should not be validating target options a lot.
I believe only x86 and powerpc use the target specific feature (that I added
for x86 in the 4.3 time frame, and then added to powerpc last year).
In terms of target_flags and target_flags_explicit, the powerpc no longer uses
this field, since we have more than 32 flag bits, and needed to move the flag
processing to something that is HOST_WIDE_INT sized instead of int sized. So,
it won't matter if you redefine the flag once again. I don't believe the x86
uses it either (for much the same reason). So, if it fixes the other ports, I
would say it is ok (but I haven't looked in detail at it).
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460, USA
email: email@example.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797