------- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 10:06 -------
* I don't see why smulbb, smultb, smulbt, smultt shouldn't be generated for
their respective cases. So, yes that's correct.
* smulwy is not supported in the backend, so that's a feature enhancement
* smlawy is again not supported in the backend and anyone implementing this
should note that overflow in the accumulate step is a part of the saturated Q
bit. Also it isn't correct to be generating smlawy in the cases mentioned
there.
* smlaxy is something that could be generated in a few of the occasions but the
PCS defeats us in these circumstances because we assume that the values passed
in are appropriately zero /sign extended.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Known to fail| |4.5.0
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-28 10:06:44
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43862
