Message ID | 87ppnboy7t.fsf@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 01/29/14 03:53, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Alex, Hi Jeff, > > There is a typo in the MN10300 store_movm pattern. It calls > mn10300_store_multiple_operation to generate a bit mask of registers > to be pushed, which it then passes to mn10300_print_reg_list. But > mn10300_store_multiple_operation is actually a predicate function > (defined in predicates.md). The function that should have been called > is mn10300_store_multiple_operation_p. > > The patch below is the obvious fix for the typo, but I am wondering > whether it would be better to rename the two functions. Eg: > > mn10300_store_multiple_operation -> mn10300_store_multiple_operation_p > mn10300_store_multiple_operation_p -> mn10300_store_multiple_regs Agreed, the naming seems awfully confusing right now. Feel free to go forward with fixing that :-) jeff
Hi Jeff, > Agreed, the naming seems awfully confusing right now. Feel free to go > forward with fixing that :-) Done - thanks! Cheers Nick
Index: gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.md =================================================================== --- gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.md (revision 207224) +++ gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.md (working copy) @@ -2059,8 +2059,7 @@ { fputs ("\tmovm ", asm_out_file); mn10300_print_reg_list (asm_out_file, - mn10300_store_multiple_operation (operands[0], - VOIDmode)); + mn10300_store_multiple_operation_p (operands[0])); fprintf (asm_out_file, ",(sp)\n"); return ""; }