On 06/10/11 18:17, Paul Brook wrote:
I believe this patch to be nothing but an improvement over the current
state, and that a fix to the constraint problem should be a separate patch.
In that basis, am I OK to commit?
One minor nit:
(define_special_predicate shift_operator
...
+ (ior
On 06/10/11 16:01, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
(define_special_predicate shift_operator
(and (ior (ior (and (match_code mult)
(match_test power_of_two_operand (XEXP (op, 1), mode)))
(and (match_code rotate)
(match_test GET_CODE (XEXP
Oh, I forgot to say, I don't understand why the rotate operator is
special cased?
If I understand it correctly, the effect of the (existing) rotate is
both to check the constant range, AND to disallow registers as the shift
amount. This difference has no effect on Thumb, but might cause ARM
Done, and attached.
Ok.
Two changes to the testcase that I'll pre-approve:
- Add a comment along the lines of
/* ARM has shift-and-alu insns. Depending on the ALU op GCC represents some
of these as a left shift, others as a multiply. Check that we match the
right one. */
- Also test
On 07/10/11 13:37, Paul Brook wrote:
Done, and attached.
Ok.
Two changes to the testcase that I'll pre-approve:
- Add a comment along the lines of
/* ARM has shift-and-alu insns. Depending on the ALU op GCC represents some
of these as a left shift, others as a multiply. Check that we
This patch is a follow-up both to my patches here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00049.html
and Paul Brook's patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01076.html
The patch fixes both the original problem, in which negative shift
constants caused an ICE
I believe this patch to be nothing but an improvement over the current
state, and that a fix to the constraint problem should be a separate patch.
In that basis, am I OK to commit?
One minor nit:
(define_special_predicate shift_operator
...
+ (ior (match_test GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 1))
