From 40bf0770563501f4c6d7e92cdaa1fa36dddd1caa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:28:09 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Fix up REVERSE_CONDITION macro [PR119002]
The linaro CI found my PR119002 patch broke bootstrap on arm.
Seems the problem is that it has incorrect REVERSE_CONDITION macro
definition.
All other target's REVERSE_CONDITION definitions and the default one
just use the macro's arguments, while arm.h definition uses the MODE
argument but uses code instead of CODE (the first argument).
This happens to work because before my patch the only use of the
macro was in jump.cc with
/* First see if machine description supplies us way to reverse the
comparison. Give it priority over everything else to allow
machine description to do tricks. */
if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_CC
&& REVERSIBLE_CC_MODE (mode))
return REVERSE_CONDITION (code, mode);
but in my patch it is used with GT rather than code.
2025-02-26 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR rtl-optimization/119002
* config/arm/arm.h (REVERSE_CONDITION): Use CODE - the macro
argument - in the macro rather than code.
---
gcc/config/arm/arm.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
index 73ca00a8de35..8472b7561272 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
@@ -2261,8 +2261,8 @@ extern int making_const_table;
#define REVERSE_CONDITION(CODE,MODE) \
(((MODE) == CCFPmode || (MODE) == CCFPEmode) \
- ? reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (code) \
- : reverse_condition (code))
+ ? reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (CODE) \
+ : reverse_condition (CODE))
#define CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO(MODE, VALUE) \
((VALUE) = GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (MODE), 2)
--
GitLab