[ping] residual TImode patch PR28617

[Jack Howarth]

Mark,
    Can you respond on Geoff's query about the residual sections of
the patch to fix PR28617 going into gcc trunk. The patch in question
is only...

Index: gcc/config/rs6000/t-darwin
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/rs6000/t-darwin	(revision 116801)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/t-darwin	(working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
 LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA = $(srcdir)/config/rs6000/darwin-tramp.asm \
+	$(srcdir)/config/rs6000/ppc64-fp.c \
+	$(srcdir)/config/darwin-64.c \
 	$(srcdir)/config/rs6000/darwin-ldouble.c
 
 LIB2FUNCS_STATIC_EXTRA = \
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h	(revision 116801)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h	(working copy)
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
 
 #ifdef IN_LIBGCC2
 /* For libgcc2 we make sure this is a compile time constant */
-#if defined (__64BIT__) || defined (__powerpc64__)
+#if defined (__64BIT__) || defined (__powerpc64__) || defined (__ppc64__)
 #undef TARGET_POWERPC64
 #define TARGET_POWERPC64	1
 #else
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/ppc64-fp.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/rs6000/ppc64-fp.c	(revision 116801)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/ppc64-fp.c	(working copy)
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING.  I
 Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
 02110-1301, USA.  */
 
-#if defined(__powerpc64__) || defined (__64BIT__)
+#if defined(__powerpc64__) || defined (__64BIT__) || defined(__ppc64__)
 #define TMODES
 #include "config/fp-bit.h"
 


Geoff question was...

>On 12/09/2006, at 1:24 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:

>> Geoff,
>>    I noticed you felt comfortable checking in the large
>> DWARF file name handling speedup patch. Might you reconsider
>> the residual parts of the PR28617 TImode patch?
>
>The DWARF patch differed in three ways:
>- I'd had several months experience with it in the Apple compiler
>- it had no known bugs
>- it was a speed improvement, and thus counts as a regression fix
>
>However, if Mark's comfortable with adding this new feature at this  
>point in the release cycle (and possibly needing to fix problems with  
>it later), then I'm happy to put it in.

Thanks in advance for a decision on this.
                 Jac