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 62CF73858D38; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 18:15:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 62CF73858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=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 35DIEk7b002603; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:14:47 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 35DIEkjW002602; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:14:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:14:46 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jiufu Guo Cc: David Edelsohn , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, bergner@linux.ibm.com, rguenther@suse.de, richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: replace '(const_int 0)' to 'unspec:BLK [(const_int 0)]' for stack_tie Message-ID: <20230613181446.GT19790@gate.crashing.org> References: <20230612131919.269681-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> <7nv8fscdka.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7nv8fscdka.fsf@ltcden2-lp1.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi! On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:15:49AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > David Edelsohn writes: > > > > This definitely seems to be a better solution. > > > > The TARGET_CONST_ANCHOR change should not be part of this patch. Also > > there is no ChangeLog for the patch. > > Thanks a lot for your quick review!! And sorry for the sending this patch > in a hurry. I would update the patch accordingly. > > This generally looks correct and consistent with other ports. I want > > to give Segher a chance to double check it, if he wishes. The documentation is very clear that the only thing for which you can have BLKmode is "mem". Not unspec, only "mem". Let's not do this. The existing code has clear and obvious semantics, which is documented as well -- there is no reason to make it worse in every respect! Segher