From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15925 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2019 19:26:45 -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 15916 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2019 19:26:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,PDS_BTC_ID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=six, progress, day X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:26:43 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id xB3JQfJH028241; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:26:41 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id xB3JQev6028240; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:26:40 -0600 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:26:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Michael Meissner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [PATCH], V7, #2 of 7, Use PLI to load up 32-bit SImode constants Message-ID: <20191203192640.GV24609@gate.crashing.org> References: <20191114222509.GA7581@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20191114224243.GB7528@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20191123002052.GL9491@gate.crashing.org> <20191125221708.GB12796@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20191126004949.GZ9491@gate.crashing.org> <20191203175724.GA12739@ibm-tinman.the-meissners.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191203175724.GA12739@ibm-tinman.the-meissners.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > No, the change for num_insns_constant_gpr could not go in until the support for > PLI went in (patch V6 #1). Well, I lost track. So your version 7 to 9 patches do *not* replace the v6 patches? Or does "V" mean something else? Please post patches you propose currently (after addressing comments, saying what is changed wrt the previous submission, etc.) And if you restructure the patch sets, e.g. add new things to patches, I will have to start reviewing from scratch. While if you just do some modifications (and you say what you modified, and that matches reality), and those modifications are in line with previous reviews, then reviewing makes easy progress. It also normally would not take a single day even to make such changes. > So for patches V6 #1-3, I believe you approved #1 (movdi) and #3 (addi3/addsi3) > after the changes but not #2 (movsi). I haven't yet applied the specific bits > of #1 or #3 after doing the reformating patch. Are the bits for #2 ok with the > above change to use num_insns_constant_gpr. Or did you want to see the 3 > patches once again after the reformating. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01605.html This is six weeks ago. And I do not know if what you call "v6" is this. Segher