On Thu, 5 May 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hm. I guess people will scream if something breaks (I can't imagine
what though).
AAAaaarghh! Building
I'm going to bootstrap regtest this on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
(with again zero testing coverage ...). The patch fixes the
reported ICE with a cross to cris-elf, more testing is appreciated
(though I guess autotesters will pick it up).
Does it look sane?
Yes, I think so, but...
Index:
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I think I did it that way because the old code tried to re-construct
the type of the original amount. I can surely simply use op1 here
if that is preferred.
Right, but it used the value of OP1
2011-05-03 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* expmed.c (expand_variable_shift): Rename to ...
(expand_shift_1): ... this. Take an expanded shift amount.
For rotates recurse directly not building trees for the shift amount.
(expand_variable_shift): Wrap around
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
2011-05-03 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
* expmed.c (expand_variable_shift): Rename to ...
(expand_shift_1): ... this. Take an expanded shift amount.
For rotates recurse directly not building trees for the shift amount.
I think I did it that way because the old code tried to re-construct
the type of the original amount. I can surely simply use op1 here
if that is preferred.
Right, but it used the value of OP1 so I think the new code should as well.
Btw, do you happen to know any target that would excercise
