This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Seongbae Park <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "Edelsohn, David" <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:56:36 +0000
- Subject: Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
- References: <45C34A75.6080108@naturalbridge.com> <45C3514F.4080309@lu.unisi.ch> <45C36CB7.4020304@naturalbridge.com>
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 11:54 -0500, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >> The arm-elf is now regression free on the dataflow branch. This patch
> >> has been bootstrapped and regression tested on x86-64, x86-32, ppc and
> >> ia-64 linux.
> >>
> >> Most of the changes to make the arm work were not actually in the arm
> >> port.
> >>
> >> 1) ASM_INPUT with no parameters is no longer a acceptable substitute for
> >> gen_blockage. Gen_blockage, with no parameters is now required on all
> >> platforms.
> >
> > Does this affect user code too? Would it make sense to expand asm("")
> > as a blockage instruction?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paolo
> i think you need to ask someone else about this. if asm_input with no
> parms is really supposed to be volatile just because it has a pretty
> face, then there are things that will have to be changed. However,
> rhyolite and stevenb did not think that this was the case.
I think the docs say that any asm with no inputs or outputs is treated
as volatile; however, I think this is handled in the front-ends (and
they thus become volatile before the middle-end sees it).
R.