This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DWARF fix and minimal MMX patch
I'm in no position to influence the acceptance of this patch, but I have
a few questions as a casual observer:
Were there testsuite cases for this new functionality written so it can be
exercised? Should they be considered along with these patches?
> Please take a look at the new mmx.h. It is more efficient than
There was no mmx.h in the submitted patch.
[ i386.h ]
> +/* MMX regs */
> +#define FIRST_MMX_REG 17
> +#define LAST_MMX_REG 24
> +
> diff -r -u egcs-19981019/gcc/config/i386/linux.h egcs-mmx/gcc/config/i386/linux.h
[ in definition of DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER ]
> --- egcs-19981019/gcc/config/i386/linux.h Thu Oct 22 22:54:52 1998
> +++ egcs-mmx/gcc/config/i386/linux.h Thu Oct 22 22:29:04 1998
> @@ -117,6 +117,8 @@
> : (n) == 6 ? 5 \
> : (n) == 7 ? 4 \
> : ((n) >= FIRST_STACK_REG && (n) <= LAST_STACK_REG) ? (n)+3 \
> + : ((n) >= FIRST_MMX_REG && (n) <= LAST_MMX_REG) ? (n)+4 \
> + : ((n) == 16) ? (20) \
> : (-1))
Is this really Linux-specific? Does this mean the emission of debug
info for MMX regs is Linux-specific or that the patch in general is
limited to Linux hosts? A quick grep shows this construct appears many
other times in i386/ and it's not obvious to me at least if they should
all be changed in the manner you suggest or not. Or is this part of the
dwarf patch you attached? By smooshing two items into one patch message
it can be hard to identify which patch is trying to fix which problem.
RJL