[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Improved loop patch
From: |
HutchinsonAndy |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Improved loop patch |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:08:45 -0500 |
Marek Michalkiewicz <address@hidden> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 06:39:17PM -0500, address@hidden wrote:
>
>> The loop change allows the SBRx instrcution to be use to skip over 1,2 or 3
>> word instructions -previously it would only skip 1 word instructions. So
>> you will less SBRx Rx,n; RJMP nnnn combinations.
>
>Thanks for your work - I've just looked at it a little. A few comments:
>
>1. Correct me if I am wrong, but what are these 3-word AVR instructions? :)
Ok you got me!
..but if there were 3 word instructions it would work too :-p
>2. Yes, 2-word instructions actually exist (CALL, JMP, LDS, STS), but you
> have to be careful with them - some old (non-enhanced core) AVR devices
> have an errata where skipping a 2-word opcode may not work correctly
> (avr-as gives a warning when it detects such code).
I'll check on this errata - I think its out of date and can be handled at
device level.
>3. Instead of checking for specific RTL patterns in avr.c (might be error
> prone), I'd suggest to define a new insn attribute (say, "skip_ok"),
> and add it to the few insns in avr.md which may be skipped. Then, the
> insn may be skipped if length == 1, or if the attribute is true and
> the device is not affected by the errata mentioned above.
Yes I considered that. But as much of the code is produce by macros/functions
it doesn't really help.
>4. Please submit each logical change in a separate patch, with its own
> ChangeLog entry. While PR18251 is a regression and certainly should
> be fixed, non-trivial improvements (which are not bug fixes) will
> probably have to wait until after 4.0 is released.
Which I did. Roger Sayle was the only respondent and has offered to submit on
my behalf. Unfortunately Roger has been busy.
For submitting here I combined the changes with "pr18251" on the basis of
acceptance and the fact I have moved my baseline up. We dont need the log here
and of course I'll separate for gcc.
>5. Have you done the FSF paperwork (copyright assignment or disclaimer)?
> MODES_TIEABLE_P was a small change, big improvement but not significant
> for copyrights. Non-trivial changes like movmem* may be problematic
> without the paperwork. The FSF is very paranoid about these issues
> (and the recent SCO problems show they may be right after all...).
>
I emailed maintainers and "assignments" to get the forms. As nothing hasppened
(ahem!), Roger was kind enough to give me the email form. I had an email
yesterday saying the forms were on there way.
I think I will have to practice the special handshake a few more times and all
will be well.
>Thanks,
>Marek
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AVR-GCC-list mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
>
--
Andy Hutchinson
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp