On 18 October 2011 11:43, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:39:22AM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote: >> On 2 October 2011 10:30, Ira Rosen <ira.ro...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > On 29 September 2011 17:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan >> > <ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 19 September 2011 08:54, Ira Rosen <ira.ro...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Bootstrapped on powerpc64-suse-linux, tested on powerpc64-suse-linux >> >>> and arm-linux-gnueabi >> >>> OK for mainline? >> >> >> >> Sorry I missed this patch. Is there any reason why we need unspecs in >> >> this case ? Can't this be represented by subregs and zero/ sign >> >> extensions in RTL without the UNSPECs ? >> >> I committed the attached patch with Ramana's solution for testing > >> +/* Detect widening shift pattern: >> >> + type a_t; >> + TYPE a_T, res_T; >> + >> + S1 a_t = ; >> + S2 a_T = (TYPE) a_t; >> + S3 res_T = a_T << CONST; >> + >> + where type 'TYPE' is at least double the size of type 'type'. >> + >> + Also detect unsgigned cases: > > unsigned
Thanks, I'll fix this. Ira > > Jakub >
