From patchwork Wed Jan 11 11:39:09 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Nick Clifton X-Patchwork-Id: 135378 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E805B6EEC for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:41:06 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1326886869; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=CijQO3o/p+lRk1zu9Mhi bcw/m+U=; b=NCHeAbyemk2Ic1rEcTGfCsW0IHOnA1O8pyu8VgJSEoW6I3y1saHk iMEelXLxrN3JJHMZUZYygH2rQmJepFlmrd0+/Xhe54jN8KL2Smjw8Ugxpxayu5a6 KLv/tQ3yu3KP2lgStjHHZu3GYub5oAIL+p8LE8kI0BwP0EGNcR6HGQI= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=f0SE8ML9XUeZ6zTy96CjRh8L83m0ZPnGMuH7zCkw6C0OJ/zJMTnV0sqQOBh42Z ycoKE2UNK5IH02SfDfUxtT1qwydbkZzHpDhnEi1yc3vycHLHZS8Ifso7Chd27lAu U//wAAkQRti3u4hE52kNVBp/jLYvefkIgKcMwyheL6F3E=; Received: (qmail 10536 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2012 11:41:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 10524 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2012 11:41:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:40:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0BBeYHS024953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:40:34 -0500 Received: from Gift.redhat.com (vpn1-6-110.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.110]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0BBeFNc022921 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:40:26 -0500 From: Nick Clifton To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Commit: RX: Add return pattern Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:39:09 +0000 Message-ID: <871ur6h3j6.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi Guys, I am checking in the patch below to fix a problem building the RX port. Targets that define the "simple_return" pattern must also define a "return" pattern. Otherwise gcc/function.c will fail to build. Cheers Nick gcc/ChangeLog 2012-01-11 Nick Clifton * config/rx/rx.md (return): Define pattern. Index: gcc/config/rx/rx.md =================================================================== --- gcc/config/rx/rx.md (revision 183092) +++ gcc/config/rx/rx.md (working copy) @@ -340,6 +340,12 @@ (set_attr "length" "2")] ) +(define_expand "return" + [(return)] + "" + "rx_expand_epilogue (false); DONE;" +) + (define_insn "simple_return" [(return)] ""