On 7/3/19 2:17 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> index 89a46a9..d74a4ba 100644
>> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>> @@ -1504,12 +1504,12 @@ simplify_unary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code,
>> machine_mode mode, rtx op)
>> && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (op, 1))
>> && XEXP (XEXP (op, 0), 1) == XEXP (op, 1)
>> && (op_mode = as_a <scalar_int_mode> (GET_MODE (op)),
>> - GET_MODE_BITSIZE (op_mode) > INTVAL (XEXP (op, 1))))
>> + GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (op_mode) > INTVAL (XEXP (op, 1))))
>> {
>> scalar_int_mode tmode;
>> - gcc_assert (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (int_mode)
>> - > GET_MODE_BITSIZE (op_mode));
>> - if (int_mode_for_size (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (op_mode)
>> + gcc_assert (GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (int_mode)
>> + > GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (op_mode));
>> + if (int_mode_for_size (GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION (op_mode)
>> - INTVAL (XEXP (op, 1)), 1).exists (&tmode))
>> {
>> rtx inner =
>
> I think these should be GET_MODE_PRECISION rather than
> GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION. They do the same thing in this context,
> but it seems odd to use GET_MODE_UNIT_... when we're specifically
> dealing with scalars.
>
> Looks good otherwise (and small enough not to need a copyright assignment,
> in case you haven't signed one).
John, I assume you're doing this for an out of tree port (s12z?)?
Otherwise it'd also be useful if you could include a test which triggers
the assert.
If you could confirm that Richard's suggestion of using
GET_MODE_PRECISION rather than GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION works it'd be
appreciated.
Thanks,
jeff
