From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.axis.com (smtp2.axis.com [195.60.68.18]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 260973858D37 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:04:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 260973858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=axis.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=axis.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=axis.com; q=dns/txt; s=axis-central1; t=1678809886; x=1710345886; h=from:to:cc:in-reply-to:subject:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:references:message-id:date; bh=xmxCqq1f2Gcd2/bWbqxTEYglqLM8UAKW24CfH1BQkgo=; b=Y7f4Fk9P0eQwwZLLBVjvA6TIlI64UmdYfg5jG5mo2NVaf0Yoc1cUDfvX 0v3sEG279X385D/g9S1WBaopM5xTUmh0HeUb1Mmi/Ut3CisFhn2y09M51 LxLCC5kFtdv8nmSD5yEQw3jjohhWc1COtHTlviAb/R22UKAkLD5WJo7ee MKnF+oTnJcSHGHfYcAsT1uVp1IjjvSwEp2XlMPLldvZC4roCkegEYTS0B mVpZRwH4F3snV1CEYCm3d4IBo5F8agi0ouoJD7aq7mwgnAZkf6Ms+EHzf uqi95HLWY86rRj2IHL8QYdZfuclKr5tc33pwozZUyrAknolTIYp0agzbE g==; From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: Sandra Loosemore CC: , In-Reply-To: (message from Sandra Loosemore on Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:31:21 -0600) Subject: [PATCH v2] doc: md.texi (Insn Splitting): Tweak wording for readability. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT References: <20230314012536.2789120417@pchp3.se.axis.com> Message-ID: <20230314160443.AC7E420417@pchp3.se.axis.com> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 17:04:43 +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,MEDICAL_SUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:31:21 -0600 > From: Sandra Loosemore > On 3/13/23 19:25, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Jan, did I get this right? This was from your > > r0-36413-g6b24c25948265c / svn r44249, now on its 22nd year! > > > > I spot-checked the pdf for readability. Also calling on a > > doc maintainer to check grammos etc. Ok to commit? > > > > -- >8 -- > > I needed to check what was allowed in a define_split, but > > had problems understanding what was meant by "Splitting of > > jump instruction into sequence that over by another jump > > instruction". > > > > * doc/md.texi (Insn Splitting): Tweak wording for readability. > > Thanks for noticing this! I can't comment on technical correctness, but > I do have some further suggestions on wording below. Thank you for the review! Updated version below with your suggestions. When spot-checking the pdf I noticed a strange split of the page after the next after the section I changed: last on page 484 "17.17 Including Patterns in Machine Descriptions", there's a "(include" last on the page and "pathname)" on top of page 485. I'm afraid this patch triggered that. IMHO it'd be wrong to diddle with formatting of *that* in *this* patch, instead leaving it to a follow-up-patch. I think the obvious fix is to *not* split up (include pathname)" because that just looks odd even without the page end in-between. Right? -- >8 -- I needed to check what was allowed in a define_split, but had problems understanding what was meant by "Splitting of jump instruction into sequence that over by another jump instruction". * doc/md.texi (Insn Splitting): Tweak wording for readability. Co-Authored-By: Sandra Loosemore --- gcc/doc/md.texi | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/md.texi b/gcc/doc/md.texi index 8e3113599fdc..134b227b9a93 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/md.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/md.texi @@ -8756,21 +8756,21 @@ insns that don't. Instead, write two separate @code{define_split} definitions, one for the insns that are valid and one for the insns that are not valid. -The splitter is allowed to split jump instructions into sequence of -jumps or create new jumps in while splitting non-jump instructions. As -the control flow graph and branch prediction information needs to be updated, -several restriction apply. - -Splitting of jump instruction into sequence that over by another jump -instruction is always valid, as compiler expect identical behavior of new -jump. When new sequence contains multiple jump instructions or new labels, -more assistance is needed. Splitter is required to create only unconditional -jumps, or simple conditional jump instructions. Additionally it must attach a -@code{REG_BR_PROB} note to each conditional jump. A global variable -@code{split_branch_probability} holds the probability of the original branch in case -it was a simple conditional jump, @minus{}1 otherwise. To simplify -recomputing of edge frequencies, the new sequence is required to have only -forward jumps to the newly created labels. +The splitter is allowed to split jump instructions into a sequence of jumps or +create new jumps while splitting non-jump instructions. As the control flow +graph and branch prediction information needs to be updated after the splitter +runs, several restrictions apply. + +Splitting of a jump instruction into a sequence that has another jump +instruction to the same label is always valid, as the compiler expects +identical behavior of the new jump. When the new sequence contains multiple +jump instructions or new labels, more assistance is needed. The splitter is +permitted to create only unconditional jumps, or simple conditional jump +instructions. Additionally it must attach a @code{REG_BR_PROB} note to each +conditional jump. A global variable @code{split_branch_probability} holds the +probability of the original branch in case it was a simple conditional jump, +@minus{}1 otherwise. To simplify recomputing of edge frequencies, the new +sequence is permitted to have only forward jumps to the newly-created labels. @findex define_insn_and_split For the common case where the pattern of a define_split exactly matches the -- 2.30.2 brgds, H-P