This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: breakage with "[PATCH] combine: Disregard clobbers in another test for two SETs (PR65693)"
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:29:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: breakage with "[PATCH] combine: Disregard clobbers in another test for two SETs (PR65693)"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <04f427aaf952283357bdc5cdc0bdabee27832d20 dot 1428528396 dot git dot segher at kernel dot crashing dot org> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1504082222420 dot 69949 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <20150409124117 dot GA24625 at gate dot crashing dot org> <CABu31nN9yjnZBk4bEcjCx=7U8Y5hqdCybmiCuyv_a7pb9aD52A at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 03:21:44PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > It would be nice if there would be some cc0 target in the compile farm,
> > since cc0 isn't going away any time soon :-(
>
> In this case it would be enough to replace the "#ifndef/#ifdef
> HAVE_cc0" code with "if (HAVE_cc0)".
>
> That's the simplest way to avoid compile breakage. Likewise for so
> many other #ifdef code (HAVE_conditional_move, HAVE_trap, etc.).
If the code inside the #ifdef can actually compile for the opposite
condition, yeah.
The bad effect of not breaking compilation for cc0 targets is we are
even less likely to consider whether something would break on cc0 ;-)
> Perhaps something to work on in the next stage1...
Thanks for volunteering!
Segher