This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- From: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas dot preudhomme at arm dot com>
- To: "'Jeff Law'" <law at redhat dot com>, "'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:42:40 +0800
- Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <00f001d044d4$23f37e20$6bda7a60$ at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1n0FZSdn4RqVHGmuoeA5+gb3MVxZheC0pFELWkRDO-mew at mail dot gmail dot com> <00f201d044d8$0131ccd0$03956670$ at arm dot com> <54DAF0CD dot 9030701 at redhat dot com>
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
> Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
> in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
> generated code across a bootstrap.
Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for rs6000?
MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
backend's MD files.
> That's probably how I'd approach gathering some data about whether or
> not the comment/code is still appropriate/needed.
Do people with svn access automatically have access to the GCC farm or
does one needs to request such access?