On 02/21/2013 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, do you prefer e.g. the following, or would you instead prefer
> that I just set some rtx to copy_rtx (src_reg) before the
> if (GET_CODE (op) != ZERO_EXTEND)
> {
> ...
> }
> block and do the >> (BITS_PER_WORD - 1) shift only after this (then it can
> be with dest_upper as target and moved only if expand_shift returns
> something different)?
This new patch is fine.
> For the patch below, I've verified no codegen changes from the earlier patch
> on the 3 testcases from the PR.
Excellent.
r~
