On Tue, 10 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > The generated code is > > the same though, and still contains too many masking operations. > > The lowering you're planning -- does that mean lowering all bitfield > ops for all targets? You've noticed "expand" makes some very > conservative assumptions (has to, without context), perhaps after > lowering your next project should be rewriting the bit-ops expanders > ;-)
That was the original idea - though I guess for now I will leave the possibility to have some of the unlowered. After all, such radical changes always prove difficult ;) Especially as I want to avoid code generation regressions and don't feel like replicating what expand does 1:1 on the tree level (though maybe I should do exactly that ... hmm). And yes, one idea was to get rid of the complication of doing this during RTL expansion (including handling unaligned loads/stores on strict align targets). Richard.
