From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-391672-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12293 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2015 06:43:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12277 invoked by uid 89); 11 Feb 2015 06:43:00 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: service87.mimecast.com
Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:42:58 +0000
Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by service87.mimecast.com; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:42:55 +0000
Received: from SHAWIN202 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);	 Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:42:54 +0000
From: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
To: "'Jeff Law'" <law@redhat.com>,	"'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia@gmail.com>
Cc: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou@adacore.com>,	"GCC Patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <00f001d044d4$23f37e20$6bda7a60$@arm.com> <CA+=Sn1n0FZSdn4RqVHGmuoeA5+gb3MVxZheC0pFELWkRDO-mew@mail.gmail.com> <00f201d044d8$0131ccd0$03956670$@arm.com> <54DAF0CD.9030701@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DAF0CD.9030701@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <00f401d045c5$f0853540$d18f9fc0$@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 115021106425504801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00675.txt.bz2

> From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:04 PM
>=20
> Given the rs6000 is affected, one could do before/after tests natively
> in the gcc farm to ensure that removing that code doesn't change the
> generated code across a bootstrap.

Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for rs6000?
MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
backend's MD files.

>=20
> That's probably how I'd approach gathering some data about whether or
> not the comment/code is still appropriate/needed.

Do people with svn access automatically have access to the GCC farm or
does one needs to request such access?

Best regards,

Thomas