This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: using scratchpads to enhance RTL-level if-conversion: the new patch now passes bootstrap with the default BUILD_CONFIG [i.e. no stage2-to-stage3 comparison errors even with debugging info off in stage2 and on in stage3] AND passes "make check" testing with no new regressions
- From: Abe Skolnik <abe_skolnik at yahoo dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:26:16 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: using scratchpads to enhance RTL-level if-conversion: the new patch now passes bootstrap with the default BUILD_CONFIG [i.e. no stage2-to-stage3 comparison errors even with debugging info off in stage2 and on in stage3] AND passes "make check" testing with no new regressions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <561258B5 dot 4060201 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Abe Skolnik <abe_skolnik at yahoo dot com>
[Bernd Schmidt wrote:]
> This is currently not really reviewable due to
> broken indentation, [...] coding guidelines.
Thanks for all your feedback, including that to which I have not explicitly replied below. I will work on this aspect of the code very soon, probably today.
> Please ensure your code is formatted
> the same way as all other code in gcc.
I understand that this is important, and already made some effort to comply, but clearly not enough yet.
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Writing-C.html
Thanks for the link!
[Abe wrote:]
>> + /* Abe`s note: do we need to do the following after getting
>> + a new pseudo-reg., as shown elsewhere in this file?
>> + if (max_regno < max_reg_num ()) max_regno = max_reg_num ();
>> + */
[Bernd Schmidt wrote:]
> Avoid referencing yourself in the comments with things like "Abe's note".
I understand now that I should have put this in the body of the email rather than in the patch. What I meant by this comment was to solicit feedback on whether or not that commented-out statement is needed in that position in the code; perhaps since the patch now passes bootstrap and regression testing, I can safely assume -- since the line is still commented out -- that it is not needed.
> Spurious whitespace change.
Sorry; I thought I had fixed that one.
I will reply separately to the algorithmic comment so that the resulting email and mailing-list archive threads are not mixed in with the above.
Thanks again for your helpful advice.
Regards,
Abe