pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> No, I am not actually. I initially thought it wouldn't work.
> However, it makes sense. I just implemented it and it doesn work.
>
I meant, it _does_ work! :)
--
PMatos
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 09/24/2010 10:10 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
> You can use mul3 for non-widening multiplication, which would
> always use smult, and {u,}mul3 for widening
> multiplication which has to use smult or umult for correctness.
> That's how i386 chooses between multi-operand i
On 09/24/2010 10:10 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
The rules currently take the shape:
,
| (define_expand "umulqihi3"
`
These rules were created in gcc42 and the idea was that we can use smult
instead of umult whenever RAH (MSW of the result) is not used
afterwards. The 2nd argument of make_m
Hello,
Our unsigned multiplication uses 2 words, while our signed
multiplication uses 1. So, we are trying to use smult for an unsigned
multiplication whenever the following multiplication disregard the MSW
of the result.
The rules currently take the shape:
,
| (define_expand "umulqihi3"
|
