This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] s390 support for tpf os
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:36:21 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch] s390 support for tpf os
- References: <1054066654.27870.9.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com>
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:17:34PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> + addr = gen_rtx_CONST_INT (HImode, 0xfe0);
> + unkn = gen_rtx_CONST_INT (SImode, 0);
GEN_INT and const0_rtx respectively.
> @@ -5513,6 +5541,33 @@ s390_emit_epilogue ()
> + if (!TARGET_64BIT)
> + emit_insn (gen_bas_31 (addr, unkn, link));
> + else
> + emit_insn (gen_bas_64 (addr, unkn, link));
> +
> + emit_insn (gen_blockage ());
Um, shouldn't the blockage go before the bas in the epilogue?
> + emit_insn (gen_zero_extendsidi2 (operands[0], operands[1]));
> + emit_insn (gen_anddi3 (operands[0], operands[0], GEN_INT (0x7fffffff)));
Does it work as well to emit
gen_anddi3 (operands[0],
gen_lowpart (DImode, operands[1]),
GEN_INT (0x7fffffff));
(i.e. with a paradoxical subreg), or does that just confuse
the optimizers?
r~