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 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits

On 02/10/15 23:42, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law []
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.
It's certainly possible, but unlikely.

I would virtually guarantee that lm32, rx, & mep, rx, tilegx, tilegxpro were never updated.

So another approach would be to build some cross tools and verify that they generate the same code before/after ripping that code out.

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?
You have to request access.  IIRC, there's a big ppc64 machine in there.


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