This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] [aarch64] Remove obsolete comment about X30

From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:51:26 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [aarch64] Remove obsolete comment about X30
References: <20180618134304.15979-1-siddhesh@sourceware.org> <20180619154119.GA31329@arm.com> <12fa5d75-c0e6-4d41-c2c1-498e563ebde3@gotplt.org>

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:41:18AM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 06/19/2018 09:11 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:43:04AM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >> r217431 changed X30 as caller-saved in CALL_USE_REGISTERS because of
> >> which this comment about X30 not being marked as call-clobbered is no
> >> longer accurate.
> > 
> > Is the second paragraph is still relevant to how we define EPILOGUE_USES?
> 
> It is, but it is essentially a repetition of the comment directly above 
> EPILOGUE_USES.
> 
> > Possibly I'd rewrite the comment to explain the behaviour around calls and
> > how they interact with x30.
> 
> How about this then:

OK,

Thanks,
James

References:
- [PATCH] [aarch64] Remove obsolete comment about X30
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar
- Re: [PATCH] [aarch64] Remove obsolete comment about X30
  - From: James Greenhalgh
- Re: [PATCH] [aarch64] Remove obsolete comment about X30
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar

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