This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Split up rs6000.c. (part 2)
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Bill Seurer <seurer at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:41:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Split up rs6000.c. (part 2)
- References: <email@example.com>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:06:14AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
> 2019-07-17 Bill Seurer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (builtin_description, cpu_is_info,
[ ... ]
(Your mailer seems to have wrapped some changelog lines, with trailing
spaces and everything).
> rs6000_internal_arg_pointer, rs6000_output_mi_thunk): Moved
> to rs6000-logue.c.
rs6000-call.c, instead :-) And don't use passive voice in changelogs
please, just say "Move to rs6000-call.c ."?
> * config/rs6000/t-rs6000: Add new source file rs6000-call.c.
> * config/config.gcc: Add new source file rs6000-call.c to garbage
To extra_objs, too.
You forgot a changelog entry for rs6000-internal.h I think?
> /* Support targetm.vectorize.builtin_mask_for_load. */
> -static GTY(()) tree altivec_builtin_mask_for_load;
> +GTY(()) tree altivec_builtin_mask_for_load;
The changelog doesn't mention these changes. There are only a few :-)
> /* True if we have expanded a CPU builtin. */
> -bool cpu_builtin_p;
> +bool cpu_builtin_p = false;
I'm curious, why was this needed? Or is it just general cleanliness :-)
The patch is fine, the changelog needs a little work. Okay for trunk
with that fixed. Thanks!