From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12331 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 09:10:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12324 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 09:10:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (212.209.10.215) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 09:10:54 -0000 Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (ignucius.se.axis.com [10.13.1.18]) by miranda.se.axis.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Debian-2woody1) with ESMTP id h499AOpL009012; Fri, 9 May 2003 11:10:24 +0200 Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id h499ANsi024223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 May 2003 11:10:24 +0200 Received: (from hp@localhost) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id h499AN4O024219; Fri, 9 May 2003 11:10:23 +0200 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305090910.h499AN4O024219@ignucius.se.axis.com> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: zack@codesourcery.com CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <87el38zs39.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> (message from Zack Weinberg on Thu, 08 May 2003 21:01:14 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix bug with #APP/#NO_APP when using macros. X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 > From: Zack Weinberg > Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 21:01:14 -0700 > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > > It's true that #NO_APP needs to be printed in ASM_FILE_START, but it's > > not true that the CRIS target is the only target which does it. > > m68k.h does it also. I actually thought that the m68k was the only > > target which used #NO_APP, but I see that you used it for the CRIS. Right, I see now and should have looked closer at m68k.h (lots of ASM_FILE_START in config/m68k/*) particularly since you pointed out that port. Sorry for the misinformation. (Luckily I used weasel phrasing. Bother, it seems to prove I can't tell very far! :-) > > I take your point, though, which is that though targets other than > > CRIS and m68k emit #APP/#NO_APP around assembler statements, it is > > ineffective and pointless. > > And since no one has noticed this up to now, does that mean that there > is no real performance benefit to be had from #NO_APP, and we can blow > away all the code that emits it from gcc? Or should gcc be changed to > emit #NO_APP at file start? The latter, per port, with caution and after fixing glibc, since Alan's measurements (thanks!) prove it's good enough (IMHO) to use it. Rare insn output templates in particular need inspection for strict formatting. Check the emitted trampoline code too, or emit #APP/#NO_APP around it. brgds, H-P