On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:08:53AM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Isn't the problem just that shifts are unusual as binops, in that the two
> operands can have different modes? We have the appropriate mode for the
> shift count in xmode1, so I think we should just always rebuild a CONST_INT
> in
On 02/12/2016 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
When expanding shifts with invalid shift counts (negative or too large),
the shift count on the GIMPLE level is typically an int mode INTEGER_CST,
but when it is passed down through various layers up to
expand_binop_directly, we only have one known
Hi!
When expanding shifts with invalid shift counts (negative or too large),
the shift count on the GIMPLE level is typically an int mode INTEGER_CST,
but when it is passed down through various layers up to
expand_binop_directly, we only have one known mode (other than operand
modes, but that is
