On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> So, yes, please have only one loop.
>
> Updated patch included.
>
> Ok?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> So, yes, please have only one loop.
Updated patch included.
Ok?
gcc-1.diffs.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Why add a new loop? It seems to be bogus to not check signedness in
>> the existing loop (mind that for fixed-point types you need to check
>> saturating/nonsaturating flag.
>
> We can re
On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Why add a new loop? It seems to be bogus to not check signedness in
> the existing loop (mind that for fixed-point types you need to check
> saturating/nonsaturating flag.
We can remove the other loop, if people don't want any of the old sem
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> unsigned builtins don't always work, as the type matching code can ignore the
> signed/unsigned variants when searching for a type with a particular mode.
> This patch fixes this problem. If a type with same unsignededness exists, we
> pre
unsigned builtins don't always work, as the type matching code can ignore the
signed/unsigned variants when searching for a type with a particular mode.
This patch fixes this problem. If a type with same unsignededness exists, we
prefer it over a type with the same mode, but different unsigned
