On 10/26/2016 01:34 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
First, there's a missing fallthru comment in spu_sched_reorder for
TYPE_LOAD/TYPE_STORE cases. If I'm reading the SPU docs properly a
load/store insn is handled by pipe_1 and we're also trying to model some
aspects of the load-store unit. So we should be setting pipe_ls and pipe_1:
case TYPE_LOAD:
case TYPE_STORE:
pipe_ls = i;
case TYPE_LNOP:
case TYPE_SHUF:
case TYPE_BR:
case TYPE_MULTI1:
case TYPE_HBR:
pipe_1 = i;
break;
This looks like intentional fallthru and should just have an appropriate
comment to silence the warning.
Agreed.
spu_legitimate_address looks far more interesting and I think it's buggy
as written:
case SUBREG:
x = XEXP (x, 0);
if (REG_P (x))
return 0;
case REG:
return INT_REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P (x, reg_ok_strict);
I think the test is inverted. We want to consider (subreg (reg)) a
valid memory address and reject all other (subreg (...)) expressions.
But this code does the opposite.
Oops, it looks like this has been broken since this commit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01505.html
It happens :-) And I'm encouraged to see these new warnings exposing
real problems.
FWIW, I forgot there's a target independent patch necessary to build SPU
with the current trunk. I'll get to pushing those forward soon enough.
jeff
