On 30/08/18 16:53, Sam Tebbs wrote:
On 08/28/2018 11:53 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > Hm, I'm not very sure about the naming here; "left consecutive" isn't a > common phrase to denote the mask you're looking for (exact_log2 (-i) != -1 > if I'm reading right), and is misleading 0x0000ffff is 'left consecutive' > too, just with zeroes rather than ones. > I think you're right about it not being the best naming. Do you have any suggestions for a better name?
Naming things is hard... :( How about aarch64_hi_bits_all_ones_p ? Kyrill
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h >> index af5db9c595385f7586692258f750b6aceb3ed9c8..01d9e1bd634572fcfa60208ba4dc541805af5ccd 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h >> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h >> @@ -574,4 +574,6 @@ rtl_opt_pass *make_pass_fma_steering (gcc::context *ctxt); >> >> poly_uint64 aarch64_regmode_natural_size (machine_mode); >> >> +bool aarch64_is_left_consecutive (HOST_WIDE_INT); >> + >> #endif /* GCC_AARCH64_PROTOS_H */ >> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c >> index fa01475aa9ee579b6a3b2526295b622157120660..3cfa51b15af3e241672f1383cf881c12a44494a5 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c >> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c >> @@ -1454,6 +1454,14 @@ aarch64_hard_regno_caller_save_mode (unsigned regno, unsigned, >> return SImode; >> } >> >> +/* Implement IS_LEFT_CONSECUTIVE. Check if I's bits are consecutive > What is IS_LEFT_CONSECUTIVE - I don't see it elsewhere in the GCC code, so > what does the comment refer to implementing? Thanks for pointing out this mistake, it should read "AARCH64_IS_LEFT_CONSECUTIVE" to refer to the function definition in aarch64-protos.h. This will of course change once a better name is thought of. Thanks, Sam
