On 25 September 2012 13:32, Segher Boessenkool
<seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> Christophe, it looks like the zero-extend in the unsigned case is not
>>> needed on any target? Assuming the shifts are at least SImode, of
>>> course (I'm too lazy to check, sorry).
>>
>>
>> It's also present when compiling:
>> unsigned short swapu16(unsigned short x) {
>> return __builtin_bswap16(x);
>> }
>>
>> so it's not directly caused by my patch I think.
>
>
> The RTL is (set (reg:HI) (bswap:HI (reg:HI))) which then gets
> extended for the SI (or DI) function return. Nothing to see here,
> it's a target problem. Your results look good.
>
OK thank for the confirmation.
I guess I just have to wait for approval by the right maintainer now?
