Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: >>> (what about partial integer modes which have weird precision (none)?) >> >> We don't really model that properly yet. Partial modes are just defined >> using something like: >> >> PARTIAL_INT_MODE (SI); >> >> i.e. without the partial precision. But trunc_int_for_mode is based on >> GET_MODE_PRECISION, so should just work if a proper precision is added. >> (There are other places that wouldn't just work, but that's something >> that the wide-int branch will help with. It almost feels like you were >> setting me up for that answer. :-)) > > Well I was asking because if you change a GEN_INT (x) to > gen_int_mode (PSImode, x) then you'll end up in trunc_int_for_mode with > PSImode which looks at GET_MODE_PRECISION (PSImode is still > a SCALAR_INT_MODE_P ...). We set precision of PSImode to -1U > it seems, but that still means that the constant is not even canonicalized > to the underlying mode. (so, should we set partial integer modes precision > to the precision of the base mode? Well, of course we should simply set > an appropriate precision at mode definition time)
Yeah. I don't think it makes sense to canonise PSI to 32 bits when we know it has fewer than 32 bits. It's still going to be wrong, and will still defeat one of the main purposes of canonical constants, which is to make equality obvious. E.g. we'd still treat PSI constants (const_int 0x...ff80000000) and (const_int 0x...ffc0000000) as different, even though they're both zero for a 24-bit PSI. This partial integer mode stuff is just a big hack. Like you say, we can only really do something sensible if we know what the real precision is. So I'd rather leave things as they are for this series. The precision effectively becomes 65535 thanks to the underlying unsigned short array, so like you say, trunc_int_for_mode is a no-op for partial modes. Changing GEN_INT to gen_int_mode shouldn't make any difference. What do you think about the patch for CC modes? Thanks, Richard
