On 25 September 2012 07:00, Segher Boessenkool
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Christophe, it looks like the zero-extend in the unsigned case is not
> needed on any target? Assuming the shifts are at least SImode, of
> course (I'm too lazy to check, sorry).
>
It's also present when compiling:
unsigned short swapu16(unsigned short x) {
return __builtin_bswap16(x);
}
so it's not directly caused by my patch I think.
We have to look at the __builtin_bswap16 expansion with an unsigned argument.
Christophe.
