This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] disintegrate integrate.[ch]
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> The attached patch moves the code from integrate.c to (what I hope you
>> agree to be) better places:
>>
>> * inliner code goes to tree-inline.c
>> * functions only called from dwarf2out.c are moved there.
>> * allocate_initial_values is moved to ira.c
>> * the initial-value stuff is moved to function.c
>>
>> The rest is just mechanical updates: Don't include integrate.h
>> anywhere, and include function.h if something is needed from there.
>>
>> The files integrate.c and integrate.h can be removed after this change.
>
> Please just drop the reference to integrate.c in expmed.c, there will be no
> point in keeping it after the remnants of the old inliner are eliminated.
Yes, I realize that, but it looks like that code is not doing
something because old integrate.c choked on it. Quoting that part of
the patch:
Index: expmed.c
===================================================================
--- expmed.c (revision 187936)
+++ expmed.c (working copy)
@@ -1866,6 +1866,9 @@ extract_fixed_bit_field (enum machine_mode tmode,
shift it so it does. */
/* Maybe propagate the target for the shift. */
/* But not if we will return it--could confuse integrate.c. */
+ /* ??? What does the above comment mean in relation to the code
+ below? NB, integrate.c is no more, so I guess it can't be
+ confused by anything anymore... */
rtx subtarget = (target != 0 && REG_P (target) ? target : 0);
if (tmode != mode) subtarget = 0;
op0 = expand_shift (RSHIFT_EXPR, mode, op0, bitpos, subtarget, 1);
Does that "But not if..." comment refer to the "if (tmode != mode)
subtarget = 0;" line? Of so, can/should we drop that line (as well as
the comment)? I don't know this part of the compiler well enough to
tell. You're much more into this than me, so perhaps you can help ;-)
Is the patch otherwise OK?
Ciao!
Steven