Kenneth Zadeck - Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work. (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

• From: Kenneth Zadeck
• To: Ian Lance Taylor
• Cc: David Edelsohn , Richard Earnshaw , Paolo Bonzini , gcc-patches , Seongbae Park , Daniel Berlin , Steven Bosscher
• Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:23:57 -0500
• Subject: Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
• References: <45C34A75.6080108@naturalbridge.com> <45C3514F.4080309@lu.unisi.ch> <45C36CB7.4020304@naturalbridge.com> <1170435396.32611.45.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <200702021703.l12H3g832904@makai.watson.ibm.com> <m34pq44f9f.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

David Edelsohn dje@watson.ibm.com writes:

The dataflow branch now requires that all ports explicitly define

a blockage pseudo-insn.

Is this better than adding a new rtx_code BLOCKAGE? Do different backends need different blockage insns?

Ian

how does one truely define "need"? All of the back ends seem to "have" different unspecs to implement it, but as far as do they "need" to have different implementations is another question.

However, adding a specific rtx for blockage brings in many of the same issues as having a specific rtx for non initializing initialization, you have to plumb this thru the back end.

kenny

• References:
  • [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: Kenneth Zadeck
  • Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: Paolo Bonzini
  • Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: Kenneth Zadeck
  • Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: Richard Earnshaw
  • Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: David Edelsohn
  • Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED to make arm-elf work.
    * From: Ian Lance Taylor