From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=6NKy=BA=orcam.me.uk=macro@sourceware.org>
Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [78.133.224.34])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0EF3857008
	for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:33 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org CE0EF3857008
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk
Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 993F492009D; Thu, 11 May 2023 02:00:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9638892009C;
	Thu, 11 May 2023 01:00:32 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 01:00:32 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
To: YunQiang Su <yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>
cc: binutils@sourceware.org, syq@debian.org, xry111@xry111.site, 
    richard.sandiford@arm.com, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, 
    Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: fix loongson3 llsc workaround
In-Reply-To: <20230323105959.1449936-1-yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2305110050000.54316@angie.orcam.me.uk>
References: <20230323105959.1449936-1-yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1163.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, YunQiang Su wrote:

> -mfix-looongson3-llsc may add sync instructions not needed on some
> asm code with lots of debug info.

 I can see the change has been committed, but who has actually reviewed 
it?

 The change description doesn't say what the change actually does, so one 
can't say whether it is correct or not.  At least an example of incorrect 
code produced ought to be shown and how the change affects it.  As it 
stands I have no idea what is going on here, and surely no one who looks 
at it in a few year's time will.

 Change descriptions cannot be retrofitted, so I think the original fix 
ought to be reverted and, assuming it is indeed the correct one, reapplied 
with a correct change description (after a proper review).

  Maciej