On 02/03/2015 10:20 PM, Chen Gang S wrote:
> On 02/01/2015 03:42 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Chen Gang S <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ./insn-flags.h:114:0: warning: "HAVE_indirect_jump" redefined
>>> #define HAVE_indirect_jump (Pmode == DImode)
>>
>> So, the 386 port uses modeless define expands from the well known named patterns and they mix in <mode> to the name of the non-well known named patterns.
>>
>
> After try, modeless define needs multiple functions, and 'i386.c' needs
> to know about them. e.g. let 'ix86_gen_tls_global_dynamic_64' point to
> gen_tls_global_dynamic_64_di() or gen_tls_global_dynamic_64_si().
>
> I guess, following this way, quite a few code in 'tilegx.c' will be
> modified for it, or it will cause issue (still look for the original no
> mode function name). e.g.
>
> ../../gcc-tile-new/gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c:2925:5: error: ‘CODE_FOR_insn_ld’ was not declared in this scope
> { CODE_FOR_insn_ld, NULL }, /* ld */
> ^
>
> If what I said above is really correct, for me, we have to try to find
> another ways to solve this issue (it is not worthy enough to modify
> quite a few code only for avoiding the suggesting warnings).
>
BTW: I find 'gccint.pdf' is a very valuable document to me, (e.g. Ch13
RTX, Ch16 MD, Ch17 TD). I shall read through it, and often reference to
it. I will mainly read it in the subway between my home and my office.
Welcome any ideas, suggestions and completions.
Thanks.
--
Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed.
