On 06/13/2016 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
...
>> Yes. It is inconsistent to builtin-types.def. Not sure if it is worth fixing
>> it.
>
> I think it wouldn't hurt, it would improve code readability.
> And it affects just the single source file.
Done.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:35:32PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 06/13/2016 11:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Also, it isn't clear to me, are there any s390 builtins right now that
> > actually have 6 arguments (my reading is that you don't count the return
> > value into that)? I.e. beyond
On 06/13/2016 11:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Also, it isn't clear to me, are there any s390 builtins right now that
> actually have 6 arguments (my reading is that you don't count the return
> value into that)? I.e. beyond the bootstrap issues, is the change actually
> fixing expansion of any
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:51:16AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 06/13/2016 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:38:22AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> >> Committed to GCC 5 and mainline branches.
> >
> > What about gcc-6-branch? It also has MAX_ARGS 5, and case
On 06/13/2016 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:38:22AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> Committed to GCC 5 and mainline branches.
>
> What about gcc-6-branch? It also has MAX_ARGS 5, and case for arity 6.
Done.
-Andreas-
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:38:22AM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Committed to GCC 5 and mainline branches.
What about gcc-6-branch? It also has MAX_ARGS 5, and case for arity 6.
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2016-06-13 Andreas Krebbel
>
> PR target/71379
>
Committed to GCC 5 and mainline branches.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-06-13 Andreas Krebbel
PR target/71379
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_expand_builtin): Increase MAX_ARGS by
one.
---
gcc/config/s390/s390.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1