Thanks, backport applied to releases/gcc-12!
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 12:28, Kito Cheng wrote:
> > OK for backport?
>
> OK, it seems no issue after a week :)
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 21:23, Philipp Tomsich
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, applied to trunk!
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 1
> OK for backport?
OK, it seems no issue after a week :)
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 21:23, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, applied to trunk!
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 15:17, Kito Cheng wrote:
> > >
> > > LGTM
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 AM Philipp Tomsich
> > > wrote:
>
OK for backport?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 21:23, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>
> Thanks, applied to trunk!
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 15:17, Kito Cheng wrote:
> >
> > LGTM
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 AM Philipp Tomsich
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND() is overly restrictive,
Thanks, applied to trunk!
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 15:17, Kito Cheng wrote:
>
> LGTM
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 AM Philipp Tomsich
> wrote:
> >
> > The SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND() is overly restrictive, triggering for
> > bits above 31 only (to side-step any issues with the negative SImode
> >
LGTM
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 AM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> The SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND() is overly restrictive, triggering for
> bits above 31 only (to side-step any issues with the negative SImode
> value 0x8000/(-1ull << 31)/(1 << 31)). This moves the special
> handling of this SImode
The SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND() is overly restrictive, triggering for
bits above 31 only (to side-step any issues with the negative SImode
value 0x8000/(-1ull << 31)/(1 << 31)). This moves the special
handling of this SImode value (i.e. the check for (-1ull << 31) to
riscv.cc and relaxes the SIN
