From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-331617-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4683 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 19:38:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 4673 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 19:38:28 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_CX,TW_XB
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (HELO shards.monkeyblade.net) (149.20.54.216)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:38:24 +0000
Received: from localhost (cpe-66-108-117-132.nyc.res.rr.com [66.108.117.132])	by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30D6A589244;	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:38:00 -0000
Message-Id: <20121112.143822.607110466711434994.davem@davemloft.net>
To: rth@redhat.com
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com, ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add support for sparc compare-and-branch
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <50A13845.6030300@redhat.com>
References: <20121022.233923.1683656545305450956.davem@davemloft.net>	<50A13845.6030300@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00939.txt.bz2

From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:56:21 -0800

> On 10/22/2012 08:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> +  /* Compare and Branch is limited to +-2KB.  If it is too far away,
>> +     change
>> +
>> +     cxbne X, Y, .LC30
>> +
>> +     to
>> +
>> +     cxbe X, Y, .+12
>> +     ba,pt xcc, .LC30
>> +      nop  */
> 
> Based on your no-control-after cbcond comment at the top
> of the patch, surely this should contain another nop as well.

Indeed, I'll fix this up.

> And surely all this code isn't so performance sensitive that
> it needs to be written in such an unreadable way.

Sure, I'll change the code to use one of the the clearer mechanisms
you suggested.

Thanks for the review.