From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5906389245B
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:28:25 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B5906389245B
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 07JHSLOQ029424;
 Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:28:21 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 07JHSL06029423;
 Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:28:21 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to
 segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:28:21 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Andrea Corallo <andrea.corallo@arm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, nd@arm.com,
 Richard Earnshaw <richard.earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new RTX instruction class FILLER_INSN
Message-ID: <20200819172821.GS28786@gate.crashing.org>
References: <gkry2nbyiiu.fsf@arm.com>
 <20200724211834.GS32057@gate.crashing.org> <gkrwo1vroaj.fsf@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <gkrwo1vroaj.fsf@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:28:27 -0000

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:13:40AM +0200, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> > So I wonder if this cannot be done with some kind of NOTE, instead?
> 
> I was having a look into reworking this using an insn note as (IIUC)
> suggested.  The idea is appealing but looking into insn-notes.def I've
> found the following comment:
> 
> "We are slowly removing the concept of insn-chain notes from the
> compiler.  Adding new codes to this file is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
> If you think you need one, look for other ways to express what you
> mean, such as register notes or bits in the basic-block structure."

That is from 2004.  Since then 9 note types have been removed, but 7
new types added.  (There are 18 insn note types now).

> Would still be justificated in this case to proceed this way?

Yes, it is a lesser evil imho.

> The other
> option would be to add the information into the basic-block or into
> struct rtx_jump_insn.

Or just look at the insn code, define a "filler-nop" insn, allow those
after BBs?  Any reason that wouldn't work?


Segher