Re: [PATCH] ia64: fix regression from fix for PR/803

[James E Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>]

On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 00:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The question thus only is whether preferring M-nops over I-nops is
> going to do any good meanwhile. H.J., do you have a particular
> preference here?

The original request came from David Mosberger, whose only interest was
discouraging use of B and F nops to avoid stalls associated with them. 
Since gcc is choosing templates itself when optimizing, this presumably
only affects hand written assembly code, and hence there might not be
enough benefit here to worry about.

> is correct. We *do* care for them when at the end, we don't care for
> them only when followed by valid instructions. I had added similar code
> temporarily; I didn't offer it with the patch because there seems to be
> a policy of having no #if-0-framed code (there was some cleanup done
> recently to that respect; I personally don't agree to such a policy, in
> various occasions such code may prove useful).

Yes, you are right.  I was trying to get rid of all of the ones that
started with invalid instructions, because they get printed first, but I
went too far.

I can avoid the possible #if 0 issue by using something like #ifdef
DEBUG_TEMPLATE instead.

Here is a revised patch.
-- 
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

Attachment: patch.extra.goodness
Description: Text document