Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-18 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install? > > Thanks, > Richard > > > gcc/ > * rtlanal.c (load_extend_op): Move to... > * rtl.h: ...here and make inline. OK, thanks. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-18 Thread Richard Sandiford
Eric Botcazou writes: >> 2016-11-15 Richard Sandiford >> Alan Hayward >> David Sherwood >> >> * rtl.h (load_extend_op): Declare. >> * rtlanal.c (load_extend_op): New

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/15/2016 11:56 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/15/2016 11:12 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Jeff Law writes: On 11/15/2016 05:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: LOAD_EXTEND_OP only applies to scalar integer modes that are narrower than a word. However, callers weren't consistent

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/15/2016 11:12 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Jeff Law writes: On 11/15/2016 05:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: LOAD_EXTEND_OP only applies to scalar integer modes that are narrower than a word. However, callers weren't consistent about which of these checks they made

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-15 Thread Eric Botcazou
> 2016-11-15 Richard Sandiford > Alan Hayward > David Sherwood > > * rtl.h (load_extend_op): Declare. > * rtlanal.c (load_extend_op): New function. I'd make it an inline function. --

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-15 Thread Richard Sandiford
Jeff Law writes: > On 11/15/2016 05:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> LOAD_EXTEND_OP only applies to scalar integer modes that are narrower >> than a word. However, callers weren't consistent about which of these >> checks they made beforehand, and also weren't consistent about

Re: Add a load_extend_op wrapper

2016-11-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/15/2016 05:42 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: LOAD_EXTEND_OP only applies to scalar integer modes that are narrower than a word. However, callers weren't consistent about which of these checks they made beforehand, and also weren't consistent about whether "smaller" was based on (bit)size or