On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > @@ -12997,7 +12997,12 @@ mips_process_sync_loop (rtx_insn *insn, rtx
> > *operands)
> > This will sometimes be a delayed branch; see the write code below
> > for details. */
> > mips_multi_add_insn (is_64bit_p ? "scd\t%0,%1" : "sc\t%0,%1", at,
> > mem, NULL);
> > - mips_multi_add_insn ("beq%?\t%0,%.,1b", at, NULL);
> > +
> > + /* We can not put the NEWVAL = $TMP3 or CMP = 1 operations in the
> > delay slot
> > + of the branch if it is a branch likely because they will not
> > execute when
> > + the atomic operation is successful, so place a NOP in there
> > + instead. */
>
> Please rephrase the comment along the lines of my previous suggestion.
> This wording is too complex IMO.
Also I'm not sure if it's an enforced rule for GCC sources (it is for
GDB for example; someone please chime in if I'm missing something here),
but can you take the opportunity and limit the span of these comment
lines a bit, like to 74 or maybe even 72 columns, similarly to the rule
for ChangeLog entries, to make them more readable. Thanks.
Maciej
