From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78807 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2015 18:17:57 -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 78791 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2015 18:17:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: cvs.linux-mips.org Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org (HELO cvs.linux-mips.org) (148.251.95.138) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:17:55 +0000 Received: (from localhost user: 'macro', uid#1010) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27008823AbbFQSRxEkvgC (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:17:53 +0200 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:44:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Steve Ellcey cc: Richard Sandiford , Joseph Myers , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Catherine Moore , Matthew Fortune Subject: Re: [Patch, MIPS] Enable fp-contract on MIPS and update -mfused-madd In-Reply-To: <1434562571.18552.6.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Message-ID: References: <4c25620c-546c-40ae-b330-3652fe25f791@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <87mvzy4nwu.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1434562571.18552.6.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg01219.txt.bz2 On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote: > Well, I don't mind removing the HONOR_NAN checks from the MIPS code in > my patch but I am not sure I can do a patch to remove it from the shared > code. I see about 80 HONOR_NAN checks in the shared code and I am not > sure which ones can and cannot be removed. FAOD I meant to remove the checks globally throughout MIPS target code only. > Is there any reason why my patch (minus the HONOR_NAN checks) would have > to wait for the other changes? Because it combines two functionally independent changes: 1. HONOR_NAN check removal. 2. FMA support addition. Worse yet, syntactically overlapping, so that e.g. it's impossible to bisect the cause of any possible regression caused without reconstructing the two changes from the patch committed if it went in as a single change. Maciej