From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD1D3858C56 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:14:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BDD1D3858C56 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org BDD1D3858C56 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701936843; cv=none; b=seYqxqapUyqY9dsosN812VPhlM/QgWdF9H3ftxxZafHQ7I+7OTC240uVO5L9PGjMxZ5VHfPnvh2+MPj8gJ521jgKIs3aW5k827A/EJGqj2HDMKSPuLWjJqDccn0YYJnzq3BqCDjChP/r4F8fBRkRdePpfJY85gEPikzsUVXCV2Q= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701936843; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L3q8O8q7XJxKhF9vLzFBZa0YIrjwi72Dn0cy/RrssMI=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:MIME-Version; b=DeV+cy6h/vfViL7npFXQhLvg2o4vGabnzDd4O7zgyMnB1c9Ix6xOPUXHTNYsGmrzrvL1KOhnwt4HFUdQrM8DIuO36QM2hwX/o+nJc7H9DucRqYQshZRoegoChsXnVZiB/AfhHJnkYMUjS4M0z6bZZbg+UNvjLGZsoNy2xCBLXno= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1701936838; bh=L3q8O8q7XJxKhF9vLzFBZa0YIrjwi72Dn0cy/RrssMI=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ulb+aheAI8lQCmAJgAkMOZCeN0WLxcbZbDToduW+1inWXrVMGFK7sxDdyiGbompyK lL98EGpfyeazXWKIlvT0E1I+OTtJLDFMjZQbdQrp8CPMIHdIEaAs25sXIVnXDy9oA4 OvCf/DjHahzb42+RTPnTnF+6zSAiempBng3EpleM= Received: from [IPv6:240e:358:1131:500:dc73:854d:832e:2] (unknown [IPv6:240e:358:1131:500:dc73:854d:832e:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DB8566BD5; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 03:13:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14172450f123ec8a3dab8769de95358016d52904.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LoongArch: Fix eh_return epilogue for normal returns From: Xi Ruoyao To: Yang Yujie Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, chenglulu@loongson.cn, xuchenghua@loongson.cn Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2023 16:13:51 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20231207014011.1512-1-yangyujie@loongson.cn> <20231207014011.1512-2-yangyujie@loongson.cn> <1dfc8551a9b201b454037dba990fb14c35a83209.camel@xry111.site> Autocrypt: addr=xry111@xry111.site; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,LIKELY_SPAM_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,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: On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 14:18 +0800, Yang Yujie wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:02:58AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > >=20 > > I don't like this pair of {} for the for statement.=C2=A0 It's not nece= ssary > > and it changes the indent level, causing the diff hard to review. > >=20 > > Otherwise LGTM.=C2=A0 I'm not sure why I didn't notice the eh_return is= sue > > when I learnt shrink wrapping from RISC-V... > >=20 >=20 > Thanks for the review!=C2=A0 This problem on LoongArch was first noticed = in a > failed libphobos test case, and the fix is partially borrowed from i386, > which seemed to be the only architecture without this issue. >=20 > So despite the extra braces (which I'd say I prefer to have because of th= e > new block of comment inserted on top of the if statement :P), I am going = to > ask Lulu for pushing this. I understand and I don't think adding {} is wrong. The problem is the indent change causes a large chunk of diff and it makes reviewing more difficult. Thus generally we should not mix real code change and format change in a commit. i. e. it would be better to separate it into two patches, the first adds {} and changes the indent, and the second changes the logic. But now I don't think it's needed to make a V4, just pushing this should be fine. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University