Adam Nemet writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think Jim said the opposite. He said
>> that the way truncate works is machine dependent. I said that the
>> output of truncate is machine independent. Since truncate is only
>> defined for fixed-point modes, I
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think Jim said the opposite. He said
> that the way truncate works is machine dependent. I said that the
> output of truncate is machine independent. Since truncate is only
> defined for fixed-point modes, I think both statements are
Adam Nemet wrote:
Jeff Law writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Adam Nemet writes:
I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
* combine.c (simplify_rtx, c
Adam Nemet writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> truncate has a machine independent meaning.
>
> Yes, I guess with your definition below it does. It's interesting though that
> Jim had said the opposite in the excerpts posted by Jeff:
>
> And a later message from Jim:
>
> Truncate convert
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> truncate has a machine independent meaning.
Yes, I guess with your definition below it does. It's interesting though that
Jim had said the opposite in the excerpts posted by Jeff:
And a later message from Jim:
Truncate converts a value from a larger to a smaller
Jeff Law writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Adam Nemet writes:
> >
> >
> >> I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
> >>
> >>r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
> >>
> >>
> >>* combine.c (simplify_rt
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Adam Nemet writes:
I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
* combine.c (simplify_rtx, case TRUNCATE): Respect value of
TRULY_NO
Adam Nemet wrote:
I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
* combine.c (simplify_rtx, case TRUNCATE): Respect value of
TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION.
Index
Adam Nemet writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> I agree that this patch looks wrong in todays compiler. There should be
>> no need to call TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION if you are in a TRUNCATE anyhow.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Do you think we can assume this for TRUNCATEs in general or only for MIPS-like
> TRUN
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> I agree that this patch looks wrong in todays compiler. There should be
> no need to call TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION if you are in a TRUNCATE anyhow.
Thanks.
Do you think we can assume this for TRUNCATEs in general or only for MIPS-like
TRUNCATEs?
I can't think of why it w
Adam Nemet writes:
> I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
>
>r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
>
>
>* combine.c (simplify_rtx, case TRUNCATE): Respect value of
>TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION.
>
I am trying to understand the checkin by Jeff Law from about 11 years ago:
r19204 | law | 1998-04-14 01:04:21 -0700 (Tue, 14 Apr 1998) | 4 lines
* combine.c (simplify_rtx, case TRUNCATE): Respect value of
TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION.
Index: combine.c
==
12 matches
Mail list logo
