Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556236.html
Thanks.
Gui Haochen
On 6/11/2020 上午 9:02, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556236.html
Thanks.
Gui Haochen
On 15/10/2020 下午 4:46, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Segher,
I re-wrote the patch based on parameterized name.
The attachments are the patch diff file and change log file.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no
regressions. Is this okay for trunk? Any recommendations? Thanks a lot.
On 29/9/2020 上午 6:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi hao Chen,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:55:29PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
Thanks for your advice. I removed macros defined in linux64.h and
linux.h. So they take relative jump tables by default. When
no-relative-jumptables is set, the absolute jump tables are taken. All
things relevant to section relocations are put in another patch.
Thanks
again.
[ Please do not insert patches into discussions ]
+/* Implement TARGET_ASM_GENERATE_PIC_ADDR_DIFF_VEC.
+ Return true if rs6000_relative_jumptables is set. */
Don't just say what the code does (we can see that ;-) ); say *why*.
Of course it is terribly simple in this case, so maybe just that first
line is plenty.
+/* Specify the machine mode that this machine uses
+ for the index in the tablejump instruction. */
+#define CASE_VECTOR_MODE \
+ (TARGET_32BIT || rs6000_relative_jumptables ? SImode : Pmode)
If TARGET_32BIT is true, SImode and Pmode are the same, so this is
simpler said as
#define CASE_VECTOR_MODE (rs6000_relative_jumptables ? SImode : Pmode)
I'll have the tablejump* patterns converted to paremeterized names
hopefully tonight or tomorrow, which will make your patch much easier
to read. It looks like it will be fine, thanks :-)
Segher
