[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386



------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk  2003-10-30 10:33 -------
Subject:  Re: Hookize BUILD_VA_LIST_TYPE

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Richard Henderson wrote:

> Part 1 of 3 to hookize the stdarg target macros.  Applied to mainline
> to minimize tree-ssa divergence.

So an undocumented macro has become an undocumented target hook; PR 3386
(still a regression) still applies.

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-12-05 02:48 -------
Even though Mark cleared it but it would be nice to have it on People's radars for 3.5.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2003-06-28 19:01:38         |2003-12-05 02:48:26
               date|                            |
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-19 22:20 -------
I've downgraded the priority and severity of this PR.  This PR is certainly not
"critical" severity; it doesn't stop people from using the compiler.  It is also
not high-priority; there will never be end-user complains about this.

I've also once-again removed the target milestone, as we'll never hold up the
release for this problem.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|critical                    |minor
           Priority|P1                          |P3
   Target Milestone|4.0.0                       |---


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-03 12:17 -------
A little update on the original list of undocumented macros:

ASM_OUTPUT_DWARF_PCREL - documented
ASM_SIMPLIFY_DWARF_ADDR - removed and poisoned
BUILD_VA_LIST_TYPE - removed and poisoned
CONST_SECTION_ASM_OP - removed and poisoned
CONVERT_HARD_REGISTER_TO_SSA_P - removed and poisoned
CRT_END_INIT_DUMMY - removed and *not* poisoned
CRT_GET_RFIB_DATA - *not* documented
DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS - documented
EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_ARG - removed and poisoned
EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_START -  *not* documented
HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK - documented
IA64_UNWIND_EMIT - removed and *not* poisoned
IA64_UNWIND_INFO - removed and *not* poisoned
IDENT_ASM_OP - *not* documented
INTEL_EXTENDED_IEEE_FORMAT - removed and *not* poisoned
MAX_LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE - removed and poisoned
MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR - documented
STABS_GCC_MARKER - removed and poisoned
TARGET_EBCDIC - removed and *not* poisoned
TARGET_ESC - documented
TDESC_SECTION_ASM_OP - Only used in config/i860/sysv4.h (not a target macro?)


Perhaps there are new undocumented hooks/macros, but I doubt it - our docs
maintainers are like watchdogs that never sleep ;-)

So ignoring the non-poisoning for which the obvious patch can be crafted
in minutes, the following three are the only remaining problems:

CRT_GET_RFIB_DATA
EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_START
IDENT_ASM_OP

Just to get it over with, I'll see what I can do to document these.





-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com  2004-12-03 12:37 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target
 macros in 3.0

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> BUILD_VA_LIST_TYPE - removed and poisoned

I noted in comment #14 that this was a case of an undocumented macro 
changing to an undocumented hook.  I.e., there's still the regression 
"current varargs interface undocumented".

Finding undocumented hooks is easier than finding undocumented macros, and 
all such hooks are inevitably regressions from before there were target 
hooks:

TARGET_VECTORIZE_MISALIGNED_MEM_OK
TARGET_VECTORIZE_BUILTIN_MASK_FOR_LOAD
TARGET_VECTORIZE_BUILTIN_MASK_FOR_STORE
TARGET_EH_RETURN_FILTER_MODE
TARGET_FOLD_BUILTIN
TARGET_VALID_POINTER_MODE
TARGET_CANNOT_FORCE_CONST_MEM
TARGET_CANNOT_COPY_INSN_P
TARGET_DELEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS
TARGET_BUILD_BUILTIN_VA_LIST
TARGET_HANDLE_PRAGMA_REDEFINE_EXTNAME
TARGET_HANDLE_PRAGMA_EXTERN_PREFIX



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[mark at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com  2004-12-03 17:31 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Undocumented target
 macros in 3.0

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> CRT_GET_RFIB_DATA
> EXPAND_BUILTIN_VA_START
> IDENT_ASM_OP
> 
> Just to get it over with, I'll see what I can do to document these.

That's great!



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386


mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.3.2                       |---


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-09-05 05:45 -------
I've decided to clear the target milestone for this PR.

Realistically, this bug just isn't ever going to hold up any release, ever.

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386



------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk  2003-07-12 00:10 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros
 in 3.0

On Sat, 11 Jul 2003, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> Is the list of undocumented macros still up to date?  Is there a way to check
> this quickly?

The list in the bug report is a subset of my longer list (of the same
vintage) <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg00507.html> (linked to from
projects/beginner.html), from which I extracted those that weren't in 2.95
so that the bug was a regression.  That message describes the methodology
- that the macro is defined in a target header, used somewhere else in the
compiler, and not mentioned in the manual - the implementation was
probably a perl+shell one-liner on the command line with some subsequent
manual editing.

Other similar checks that can be done:

* Macros that are documented but not defined by any targets, or defined 
only with one default value (in which case the default should at least go 
to defaults.h if there is thought to be value in retaining the macro).

* Macros that are documented but not used in the compiler (whether or not
defined by targets).

* Macros that are defined in a target header but not used in the compiler 
(including in that config directory), whether or not documented.

* Macros that are tested in the compiler but not defined anywhere and not
documented.

I.e., if DOC is the set of all documented target macros (extracted from 
the manual), DEF is the set of those that are defined (or defined with 
nondefault values, ideally), extracted from target headers and USE is the 
set of all identifiers used in the compiler that might possibly be macros 
(this generates much too big a set and in some cases should include those 
used in target headers, in some cases shouldn't; it also needs to cover 
#ifdef / #ifndef), then:

* Anything in DOC should be in DEF intersect USE.

* Anything in DEF intersect USE should be in DOC.

* Anything in DEF should be in the bigger version of USE (including uses 
within that target directory).

* Anything in USE that is used _as a macro_ (meaning in preprocessor
conditional tests) should be in a bigger version of DEF that includes
defines outside target headers and autoconf-generated defines.

A lot of such checks may generate false positives in practice.  But
perhaps robust scripts to generate DOC, the two versions of DEF and the
three versions of USE would help people do these tests.

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386


neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |3.3.2

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[mark at codesourcery dot com]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386



------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com  2003-07-11 23:40 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target
	macros in 3.0

On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 16:33, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386
> 
> 
> steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |mark at codesourcery dot com
>    Target Milestone|3.3.1                       |3.4

I'd prefer we leave this for 3.3.2, rather than 3.4, so that it shows up
on everyone's radar when they search for bugs to kill for the next
release.

Thanks,

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-11 23:38 -------
There really is no easy way to find out what are the new ones that got not documented, I 
tried to update the list that was there and add people who added some of the patches 
which added the target macros.

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386


steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mark at codesourcery dot com
   Target Milestone|3.3.1                       |3.4


------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-07-11 23:33 -------
This PR is targeted for 3.3.1, but I believe it is not reasonable to expect this
to be fixed before then; this PR is important for 3.4 and it really, _really_,
__REALLY__ should be fixed for 3.4.  But certainly not for 3.3.1.  So I moved
the target milestone.

Is the list of undocumented macros still up to date?  Is there a way to check
this quickly?

[Bug other/3386] [3.3/3.4 Regression] Undocumented target macros in 3.0

[pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3386


pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |critical
           Keywords|                            |documentation
           Priority|P2                          |P1
   Last reconfirmed|2003-05-24 23:08:59         |2003-06-28 19:01:38
               date|                            |
            Summary|Undocumented target macros  |[3.3/3.4 Regression]
                   |in 3.0                      |Undocumented target macros
                   |                            |in 3.0
   Target Milestone|3.4                         |3.3.1


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-06-28 19:01 -------
Chaning this to a regression because these should fixed soon.