On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com wrote:
What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
Is this
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com wrote:
What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
The test scanning for * 4 would not be fixed with int32plus indeed (if
int is larger than 32bits). Using int32_t would be better than
SImode as SImode is not guaranteed to be 32bits either.
SImode should (if it exists) always be four times QImode,
I noticed that there is a bunch of testcases in gcc.dg/tree-ssa
(slsr-27.c, for e.g.) that assume that the size of the integer is 4
bytes. For example, slsr-27.c has
struct x
{
int a[16];
int b[16];
int c[16];
};
and
void
f (struct x *p, unsigned int n)
{
foo (p-a[n], p-c[n],
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com wrote:
What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
Is this the right way to go?
I like this. Pre-approved.
