gcc-4.6: Bring in latest linaro patches

Adjust existing patches for latest FSF gcc-4_6-branch

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>

1 files changed, 62 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6/linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106783.patch b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6/linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106783.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..61e3916375
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4.6/linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106783.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+2011-07-31  Revital Eres  <revital.eres@linaro.org>
+
+        gcc/
+        Backport from trunk -r176970:
+
+        * modulo-sched.c: Change comment.
+        (reset_sched_times): Fix print message.
+        (print_partial_schedule): Add print info.
+
+=== modified file 'gcc/modulo-sched.c'
+--- old/gcc/modulo-sched.c      2011-07-04 12:01:34 +0000
++++ new/gcc/modulo-sched.c      2011-07-31 10:58:46 +0000
+@@ -84,13 +84,14 @@
+       II cycles (i.e. use register copies to prevent a def from overwriting
+       itself before reaching the use).
+ 
+-    SMS works with countable loops whose loop count can be easily
+-    adjusted.  This is because we peel a constant number of iterations
+-    into a prologue and epilogue for which we want to avoid emitting
+-    the control part, and a kernel which is to iterate that constant
+-    number of iterations less than the original loop.  So the control
+-    part should be a set of insns clearly identified and having its
+-    own iv, not otherwise used in the loop (at-least for now), which
++    SMS works with countable loops (1) whose control part can be easily
++    decoupled from the rest of the loop and (2) whose loop count can
++    be easily adjusted.  This is because we peel a constant number of
++    iterations into a prologue and epilogue for which we want to avoid
++    emitting the control part, and a kernel which is to iterate that
++    constant number of iterations less than the original loop.  So the
++    control part should be a set of insns clearly identified and having
++    its own iv, not otherwise used in the loop (at-least for now), which
+     initializes a register before the loop to the number of iterations.
+     Currently SMS relies on the do-loop pattern to recognize such loops,
+     where (1) the control part comprises of all insns defining and/or
+@@ -598,8 +599,8 @@
+             /* Print the scheduling times after the rotation.  */
+             fprintf (dump_file, "crr_insn->node=%d (insn id %d), "
+                      "crr_insn->cycle=%d, min_cycle=%d", crr_insn->node->cuid,
+-                     INSN_UID (crr_insn->node->insn), SCHED_TIME (u),
+-                     normalized_time);
++                     INSN_UID (crr_insn->node->insn), normalized_time,
++                     new_min_cycle);
+             if (JUMP_P (crr_insn->node->insn))
+               fprintf (dump_file, " (branch)");
+             fprintf (dump_file, "\n");
+@@ -2550,8 +2551,13 @@
+       fprintf (dump, "\n[ROW %d ]: ", i);
+       while (ps_i)
+        {
+-         fprintf (dump, "%d, ",
+-                  INSN_UID (ps_i->node->insn));
++         if (JUMP_P (ps_i->node->insn))
++           fprintf (dump, "%d (branch), ",
++                    INSN_UID (ps_i->node->insn));
++         else
++           fprintf (dump, "%d, ",
++                    INSN_UID (ps_i->node->insn));
++       
+          ps_i = ps_i->next_in_row;
+        }
+     }
+