On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your good suggestions!
>
> This patch was remade and attached. Does the v2 patch look better?
>
> Bootstrap and new testcase tested on aarch64 & x86 Linux platform.
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for your good suggestions!
> >
> > This patch was remade and attached. Does the v2 patch look better?
> >
> > Bootstrap and new testcase tested on aarch64 & x86 Linux platform.
>
> OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
Thanks for
Hi,
Thanks for your good suggestions!
This patch was remade and attached. Does the v2 patch look better?
Bootstrap and new testcase tested on aarch64 & x86 Linux platform.
Kaipeng Zhou
PR95854-v2.diff
Description: PR95854-v2.diff
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a fix for pr95854.
>
> Only add a judgement to make sure operand1 and operand2 are both INTEGER_CST.
>
> Bootstrap and tested on aarch64 Linux platform. No new regression witnessed.
>
> Is it ok to be merged?
Please use
Oh, and the testcase is wrong too, you can't use AArch64 specific
compilation options in generic tests, so either the test needs to be moved
into gcc.target/aarch64/ and match in style how such -march option is
specified in other tests there, or should not have that -m* in dg-options,
but have /*
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:15:57AM +, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a fix for pr95854.
>
> Only add a judgement to make sure operand1 and operand2 are both INTEGER_CST.
So what are those two operands then when not INTEGER_CSTs? POLY_INT_CSTs?
The documentation says:
operand
