From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2068 invoked by alias); 4 May 2004 00:52:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2012 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 00:52:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 May 2004 00:52:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i440p9xF009608; Mon, 3 May 2004 20:51:09 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i440q5w06714; Mon, 3 May 2004 20:52:06 -0400 Received: from [172.16.25.141] (dhcp-172-16-25-141.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.141]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i440q5C13276; Mon, 3 May 2004 17:52:05 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] From: Eric Christopher To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <200405040040.CAA06815@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <200405040040.CAA06815@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1083631924.32152.53.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 00:52:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 17:40, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Eric Christoper wrote: > > >Having lots of problems with the tpf tracing functions until it was > >realized that they don't actually affect anything and don't need > >standard call mechanisms for save and restore either, just execute. > > How come? Your change shouldn't generate any different code; > could you elaborate what the problems were? Regrename wanted to start changing things around and inside the branch and then flow would complain about register liveness later. Optimization would also play havoc with varargs. I can send you a couple of testcases if you'd like... > > >+(define_insn "prologue_tpf" > >+ [(unspec_volatile [(const_int 0)] UNSPECV_TPF_PROLOGUE)] > >+ "TARGET_TPF" > >+ "bas\t%%r1,4064" > >+ [(set_attr "type" "jsr")]) > > We should have a (clobber (reg 1)) here at least ... I thought that it wouldn't be guaranteed to have anything there going in here, but I can add the clobber. -eric -- Eric Christopher