From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19687 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2014 14:29:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19674 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2014 14:29:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.111) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:29:04 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:29:01 +0100 Received: from d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.13) by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.145) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:29:00 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6383117D8045 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:30:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s71ESx4j23789634 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:28:59 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s71ESw4Y005248 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:28:59 -0600 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id s71ESvBE005167; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:28:57 -0600 Message-Id: <201408011428.s71ESvBE005167@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:28:57 +0200 Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices@dwf_regno To: rohitarulraj@freescale.com Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:29:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org), edmar@freescale.com (Edmar Wienskoski), dje.gcc@gmail.com (dje.gcc@gmail.com), amodra@gmail.com (Alan Modra), jakub@redhat.com (Jakub Jelinek) In-Reply-To: from "rohitarulraj@freescale.com" at Jul 31, 2014 06:11:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14080114-0342-0000-0000-000000A07746 X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 Rohit, > #define DWARF_REG_TO_UNWIND_COLUMN(r) \ >- ((r) > 1200 ? ((r) - 1200 + (DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS - 32)) : (r)) >+ ((r) >= 1200 ? ((r) - 1200 + (DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS - 32)) : (r)) OK, makes sense. > /* Use gcc hard register numbering for eh_frame. */ >-#define DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM(REGNO) (REGNO) >+#define DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM(REGNO) \ >+ ((REGNO) >= FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO ? ((REGNO) - FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO + 1200) : (REGNO)) Any reason for not using SPE_HIGH_REGNO_P here, just in case we do get other hard registers at some point? Otherwise this now looks good to me. (Of course, I cannot approve the patch myself.) Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com