From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19203 invoked by alias); 8 May 2015 19:56:28 -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 19188 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2015 19:56:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 May 2015 19:56:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48JuPNP029548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 May 2015 15:56:25 -0400 Received: from anchor.twiddle.net (vpn-226-146.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.226.146]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48JuOQG020232; Fri, 8 May 2015 15:56:24 -0400 Message-ID: <554D14E7.9080405@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 19:56:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org CC: peterz@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jakub@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Convert to md_asm_adjust References: <1431034740-5375-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <1431034740-5375-5-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <554D1167.2000501@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <554D1167.2000501@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00746.txt.bz2 On 05/08/2015 12:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > I'm going to assume the include header order juggling/additions were all > necessary. Correct -- target.h now uses vec<>, which means that vec.h must be included first. In the olden days I'd have just put the vec.h include at the top of target.h. ;-) > Presumably we don't have a symbolic return value from decode_reg_name. That'd > be a good cleanup for someone. Correct. Since the beginning of time, it would seem. > Much of the cfgexpand bits were painful to read. I did my best, things look > reasonable, but that's largely from reading the comments and scanning the > relevant code -- trying to match up old behaviour and new behaviour across the > board was tough. I realize this mess isn't of your making :-) Yeah. Sadly there was no smaller step; you can't half-covert a variable from lists to vectors. And since the existing target hook used the lists, they had to be done at the same time. r~