From patchwork Tue May 29 08:41:04 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Steven Bosscher X-Patchwork-Id: 161707 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 BF0B7B6FBA for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 18:41:24 +1000 (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=1338885685; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:Received:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type:Mailing-List: Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=Aq/6v1DGXPfIomSPBwx9nR8/wUY=; b=I5pjtQYUQs/RhAUfWFl7RBJtg+Qsf0GLL6YyADuRT014CqpllX+DzFxDv4pkM7 O5hffhiywrv1HWnU1w64RbcidhUrXx353ynJX5oWapXGQceiPG814Oy9igr65OZl dDboGbp2nwBuqEvw2Y2UDrG7kQh5jT6J+k71L199YBzcg= 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:MIME-Version:Received:Received:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=aWm25i8gGDENZfbwxXCJP+cCZS2M2SAfaagGhuublBjcZVcp8ThFgd+tOJ7BdF gF4q6q03K5MNtGoX7tBbLv47E6hL2t1ZXfW9QgMiySVz/ABTI9LXuo2R7VgaoaqG jet4HD6qwkp9+rwbwiBhmKVr1zHPSIGdyK3RDMeqvMSYY=; Received: (qmail 24499 invoked by alias); 29 May 2012 08:41:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 24379 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2012 08:41:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gg0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gg0-f175.google.com) (209.85.161.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:41:05 +0000 Received: by ggnp4 with SMTP id p4so2424491ggn.20 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 01:41:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.6.18 with SMTP id j18mr3161293ani.33.1338280864305; Tue, 29 May 2012 01:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.116.6 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 01:41:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205290843.14774.ebotcazou@adacore.com> References: <201205290843.14774.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:41:04 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] disintegrate integrate.[ch] From: Steven Bosscher To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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 On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> The attached patch moves the code from integrate.c to (what I hope you >> agree to be) better places: >> >> * inliner code goes to tree-inline.c >> * functions only called from dwarf2out.c are moved there. >> * allocate_initial_values is moved to ira.c >> * the initial-value stuff is moved to function.c >> >> The rest is just mechanical updates: Don't include integrate.h >> anywhere, and include function.h if something is needed from there. >> >> The files integrate.c and integrate.h can be removed after this change. > > Please just drop the reference to integrate.c in expmed.c, there will be no > point in keeping it after the remnants of the old inliner are eliminated. Yes, I realize that, but it looks like that code is not doing something because old integrate.c choked on it. Quoting that part of the patch: Does that "But not if..." comment refer to the "if (tmode != mode) subtarget = 0;" line? Of so, can/should we drop that line (as well as the comment)? I don't know this part of the compiler well enough to tell. You're much more into this than me, so perhaps you can help ;-) Is the patch otherwise OK? Ciao! Steven Index: expmed.c =================================================================== --- expmed.c (revision 187936) +++ expmed.c (working copy) @@ -1866,6 +1866,9 @@ extract_fixed_bit_field (enum machine_mode tmode, shift it so it does. */ /* Maybe propagate the target for the shift. */ /* But not if we will return it--could confuse integrate.c. */ + /* ??? What does the above comment mean in relation to the code + below? NB, integrate.c is no more, so I guess it can't be + confused by anything anymore... */ rtx subtarget = (target != 0 && REG_P (target) ? target : 0); if (tmode != mode) subtarget = 0; op0 = expand_shift (RSHIFT_EXPR, mode, op0, bitpos, subtarget, 1);