On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> The test scanning for * 4 would not be fixed with int32plus indeed (if
> int is larger than 32bits). Using int32_t would be better than
> SImode as SImode is not guaranteed to be 32bits either.
SImode should (if it exists) always be four times QImode,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> > On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
>> > wrote:
>> >> What is right way to fix these? I sa
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> > wrote:
> >> What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
> >>
> >> typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((_
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> wrote:
>> What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
>>
>> typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
>>
>> Is this the right way to go?
>
> I like this. Pre
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
>
> typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
>
> Is this the right way to go?
I like this. Pre-approved.
