This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RFA: patch for solving PR16414 for ia64
- From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- To: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:10:39 -0400
- Subject: RFA: patch for solving PR16414 for ia64
The following patch solves problems 16414 reported by H.J. Lu.
In one my previous patch I made a typo. Absense of asm operands means
that asm_nopernds returns -1. I wrote 0. The patch fixes the typo.
The patch was tested on the mainline and gcc-3_4-branch on
regression tests (for -march=itanium1). It looks ok.
Is it ok to commit it into gcc mainline and gcc-3_4-branch?
Vlad
2004-07-08 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
PR target/16414
* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_dfa_new_cycle): Fix typo in comparison
of asm_noperands result.
Index: config/ia64/ia64.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c,v
retrieving revision 1.265.2.10
diff -c -p -r1.265.2.10 ia64.c
*** config/ia64/ia64.c 7 Jul 2004 15:15:52 -0000 1.265.2.10
--- config/ia64/ia64.c 8 Jul 2004 15:57:59 -0000
*************** ia64_dfa_new_cycle (FILE *dump, int verb
*** 6283,6289 ****
setup_clocks_p = TRUE;
if (setup_clocks_p && ia64_tune == PROCESSOR_ITANIUM
&& GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) != ASM_INPUT
! && asm_noperands (PATTERN (insn)) == 0)
{
enum attr_itanium_class c = ia64_safe_itanium_class (insn);
--- 6283,6289 ----
setup_clocks_p = TRUE;
if (setup_clocks_p && ia64_tune == PROCESSOR_ITANIUM
&& GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) != ASM_INPUT
! && asm_noperands (PATTERN (insn)) < 0)
{
enum attr_itanium_class c = ia64_safe_itanium_class (insn);