From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208263857015 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 21:38:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 208263857015 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=segher@kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 06FLc7cM001629; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:38:07 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 06FLc61H001628; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:38:06 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:38:06 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: will schmidt Cc: GCC Patches , Peter Bergner , David Edelsohn , Bill Schmidt , mikpelinux@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000, gcc-8 ] Improve handling of built-in initialization. [PR95952] Message-ID: <20200715213806.GU30544@gate.crashing.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 21:38:09 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:15:01PM -0500, will schmidt wrote: > We've got a scenario with a combination of old hardware, gcc-8 and > binutils where gcc will ICE during it's selftest. This ICE was exposed > when the builtin processing for better #pragma support was added, where > we no longer skip builtin initialization based on the current mask. > OK for gcc-8 ? Yes, but some formatting nits: > + /* PR95952: Gracefully skip builtins that do not have the icode properly > + set, but do have the builtin mask set. This has occurred in older gcc > + builds with older binutils support when binutils refuses code generation > + for instructions that it does not support. This was exposed by changes > + allowing all builtins being initialized for better #pragma support. */ Nice useful comment :-) > + if (d->icode == CODE_FOR_nothing && d->mask) { > + HOST_WIDE_INT builtin_mask = rs6000_builtin_mask; The { goes on the next line: if (d->icode == CODE_FOR_nothing && d->mask) { HOST_WIDE_INT builtin_mask = rs6000_builtin_mask; (two spaces indent, twice). if (TARGET_DEBUG_BUILTIN) { fprintf (stderr, "altivec_init_builtins, altivec predicate builtin %s", d->name); fprintf (stderr, " was skipped. icode:%d, mask: %lx, builtin_mask: 0x%lx", d->icode, d->mask, builtin_mask); (those lines are much too long, but debug code, I can't say I care much). } continue; } So: { always goes on a line of its own, two columns extra indent both before and after it; } always aligns exactly with the {. Okay for GCC 8 with that cleaned up. Thank you! Segher