From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16744 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2002 13:38:53 -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 16725 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 13:38:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 13:38:49 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id NAA27343; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:38:48 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma026390; Thu, 7 Nov 02 13:38:01 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28102; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:38:00 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gA7Dc0O14992; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:38:00 GMT Message-Id: <200211071338.gA7Dc0O14992@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Jason R Thorpe cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] ARM -- Implement ATPCS stack alignment rules In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:47:24 PST." <20021106104724.O27156@dhcp7.wlan.shagadelic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:38:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:12:34AM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote: > > > OK, I've folded this in. Lemme try and track down the source of these > > regressions, and I'll post another patch... > > Ok, the source of the Thumb regressions has been found (thanks a million, > Richard :-), and an arm-elf sim testsuite run is in-progress. > > OK for mainline if it passes? > > 2002-11-06 Jason Thorpe > > * config/arm/arm-protos.h (arm_get_frame_size) > (thumb_get_frame_size): New prototypes. > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_get_frame_size) > (thumb_get_frame_size): New functions. > (use_return_insn, arm_output_epilogue, arm_output_function_epilogue) > (arm_compute_initial_elimination_offset, arm_expand_prologue): Use > arm_get_frame_size. > (thumb_expand_prologue, thumb_expand_epilogue): Use > thumb_get_frame_size. > * config/arm/arm.h (PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY): Define. > (machine_function): Add frame_size member. > (THUMB_INITIAL_ELIMINATION_OFFSET): Use thumb_get_frame_size. > > 2002-11-05 Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com) > > * arm.c (bit_count): Make argument unsigned long. Return unsigned. > Adjust code to use portable unsigned bit manipulation. > (insn_flags, tune_flags): Change type to unsigned. > (struct processors): Make flags unsigned long. > (arm_override_options): Change type of count and current_bit_count > to unsigned. Normally it would be too late for a patch of this complexity to be placed on the trunk, but since this doesn't change the behaviour for existing configurations and since we need it before we can add a netbsd/elf configuration, then yes, this is ok for the trunk. R.