I see that another Post-5.0 change has been committed to the trunk. Could someone review this change when they have a chance.
Thanks, Doug From: Gilmore, Doug Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:57 PM To: Jian-Xin Lai Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request s/got it/got in/ Sorry about that. Doug From: Gilmore, Doug [mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:33 PM To: Jian-Xin Lai Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request I wasn't too concerned about when it got it. I just wanted to know what people thought was a better stylistic solution to this problem in the long term. Doug From: Jian-Xin Lai [mailto:laij...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:13 PM To: Gilmore, Doug Cc: open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] CG minor cleanup review request Hi Doug, Do you plan to add this patch to the coming 5.0 release? 2011/10/19 Gilmore, Doug <doug.gilm...@amd.com<mailto:doug.gilm...@amd.com>> I noticed tons of warnings associated with CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() when I compiled a source file in CG with "-Wall -O2". The patch cleans up the warnings. Note that the only use for CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() is the following code in cgemit.cxx: if (CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op (op)) { if (TN_register(OP_opnd(op,0+predicated)) == REGISTER_zero) { DevWarn ("Redundant shift instruction in %sBB:%d (PC=0x%x)", BB_rotating_kernel(OP_bb(op)) ? "SWPd " : "", BB_id(OP_bb(op)), PC); if (TFile != stdout) { /* only print to .t file */ Print_OP_No_SrcLine (op); } } Since there are no zero registers the X8664 architectures, it didn't matter that CGTARG_Is_Right_Shift_Op() produced bogus results. Another approach would be just removing the function from osprey/be/cg/x8664/cgtarget_arch.h and replacing the above code snippet with: #if defined(TARG_MIPS) || defined(TARG_IA64) || defined(TARG_LOONGSON) <SNIPPET> #endif I think either approach is fine, I'll let the reviewers decide which (or yet another) approach we should use. Could a gatekeeper take a look at the patch when they have the chance? Thanks, Doug ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel -- Regards, Lai Jian-Xin
cgtarget_arch.patch
Description: cgtarget_arch.patch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
