From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E10B3858007
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:37 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6E10B3858007
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
 by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2150CD6E;
 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.88])
 by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F3123F694;
 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Robin Dapp <rdapp@linux.ibm.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Robin Dapp <rdapp@linux.ibm.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
 richard.sandiford@arm.com
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] ifcvt: Check if cmovs are needed.
References: <20210625160905.23786-1-rdapp@linux.ibm.com>
 <20210625160905.23786-2-rdapp@linux.ibm.com> <mpt7dhr8hj5.fsf@arm.com>
 <399e9ada-8a0a-e95b-f037-b3f3cb8a6c48@linux.ibm.com>
 <mptmtq8nba6.fsf@arm.com>
 <b974902c-9cfe-b861-e3c8-cdbc950004ee@linux.ibm.com>
 <mpt4k9kgflf.fsf@arm.com>
 <5ddba534-293b-6d24-0543-4d0c601a5458@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:32:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5ddba534-293b-6d24-0543-4d0c601a5458@linux.ibm.com> (Robin
 Dapp's message of "Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:20:38 +0200")
Message-ID: <mpt35p3ekxo.fsf@arm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_SHORT, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:32:38 -0000

Robin Dapp <rdapp@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> (2) Insert:
>>=20
>>      if (SUBREG_P (src))
>>        src =3D SUBREG_REG (src);
>>=20
>> here.
>>=20
>> OK with those changes if that works.  Let me know if they don't =E2=80=94
>> I'll try to be quicker with the next review.
>
> thank you, this looks good in a first testsuite run on s390.  If you=20
> have time, would you mind looking at the other outstanding patches of=20
> this series as well? In case of further comments, which I am sure there=20
> will be, I could test them all at once afterwards.

Which ones still need review?  I think 2/7 and 3/7 are approved,
but 4/7 was still being discussed.  AFAICT the last message on
that was:

   https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/576865.html

We probably need to reach a conclusion on that before 5/7.
6/7 and 7/7 looked to be s390-specific.

Thanks,
Richard