This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Tidy up MD_INCLUDES in config/arm/t-arm
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>
- Cc: Matthew Gretton-Dann <Matthew dot Gretton-Dann at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:40:49 +0000
- Subject: Re: Tidy up MD_INCLUDES in config/arm/t-arm
- References: <4ED4A8F3.1060100@arm.com> <4ED4AA18.7040002@arm.com> <4ED76082.2010904@gjlay.de>
On 01/12/11 11:09, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 29/11/11 09:42, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Whilst developing the Cortex-A15 integer pipeline patch it was noted
>>> that the MD_INCLUDES variable in config/arm/t-arm has not been kept
>>> up-to-date.
>>>
>>> The attached patch fixes this, and rearranges the list of md files into
>>> alphabetical order.
>>>
>>> The list was generated using `ls -1 *.md | grep -v arm\\.md`.
>>>
>>> Tested by doing a arm-none-eabi build.
>>>
>>> Can someone please review, and if appropriate apply?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>> 2011-11-29 Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com>
>>>
>>> * config/arm/t-arm (MD_INCLUDES): Ensure all md files are
>>> listed.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> R.
>
> Is each entry mandatory in that list?
>
> I thought gen-tools already arrange for great part of MD_INCLUDES?
>
> For example, after adding (include "avr-dimode.md") to avr.md, ./gcc/mddeps.mk
> reads:
>
> MD_INCLUDES = \
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/predicates.md \
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/constraints.md \
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/avr-dimode.md
>
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/predicates.md:
>
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/constraints.md:
>
> ../../../gcc.gnu.org/trunk/gcc/config/avr/avr-dimode.md:
>
> so that maintaining such a list might be considerable easier.
>
Indeed. I hadn't realised that that feature had been added since I first added that macro. It does
indeed look as though the whole definition of MD_INCLUDES is now redundant.
R.