On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:55:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Thanks, I think you're right on there. The comments on PR31136 make it
> fairly clear what's wrong; perhaps the best solution might be for
> STRIP_SIGN_NOPS to mask out the high bits when it's discarding a size-reducing
> NOP_EXPR? Or
On 09 April 2007 22:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly represented in
>> GIMPLE, or should it be performed when generating the corresponding RTL?
>
> There are two things here:
>
> (
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:37:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly represented in GIMPLE,
> or should it be performed when generating the corresponding RTL?
There are two things here:
(1) Promotion of arguments to their devlared types, should
On 4/9/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Evening all, just a quick question:
[ ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31513, "
[4.2/4.3 Regression] Miscompilation of Function Passing Bit Field Value to
Function" ]
Should promotion of function arguments be explicitly re
