This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:27:37 -0700
- cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>, Robert Lipe <robertlipe at usa dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101090129360.27889-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
you write:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> Well, actually I would think the subreg-byte-branch got more real world
> >>> testing on alpha/x86/sparc than the current mainline, cause it's part o
> f
> >>> the RedHat7 gcc-2.96 AFAIK.
> > No, the patch is used on all platforms (ie. alpha, x86, sparc, sparc64 at
> > least, plus I think some people are using the same source on powerpc) all
> > the time.
>
> In my opinion that means we should really consider integrating it into our
> mainline ASAP, and in fact an additional release criterion for GCC 3.0.
Well, as Richard mentioned, there is an alternate solution. It has
performance drawbacks for the code generated for the sparc64 though.
Part of me wants badly to get the SUBREG_BYTE stuff installed, but part of
me also wants to avoid it given its size and potential for causing problems.
jeff