On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:34:12PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No, I'm not touching tmp array at all in that case, only look at vp
> > individual bytes. Either they are all 0, or all 0xff, or I return NULL.
>
> Oh, sorry, I misread where the break; in your code was going. I might have
> been misled by:
>
> > - gcc_assert (GET_MODE_PRECISION (outer_submode)
> > - <= MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT);
>
> in your patch. You don’t need that anymore, do you? If not, can you remove
> this part.
I thought the assert is unnecessary given the condition just a few lines
above it. But can keep it, perhaps gcc_checking_assert would be enough, and
hopefully compiler optimizes it away completely.
>
> The rest looks like normal rtl/vector code, I don’t see anything wrong with
> it.
Jakub
