> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:18:04 +0530
> From: "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am glad that the mistake has been rectified. But it would be of
> great help requirement of the '+' constraint for strict_low_part is
> mentioned somewhere in the gcc internals. Even though the mailing list
> h
Hello all,
I am glad that the mistake has been rectified. But it would be of
great help requirement of the '+' constraint for strict_low_part is
mentioned somewhere in the gcc internals. Even though the mailing list
helped me to solve the problem , i could have saved some time had it
been documen
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:32:02 +0200
> From: Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> > In cris i saw this patten
> >
> > (define_insn "*andhi_lowpart"
> > [(set (strict_low_part
> > (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand""=r,r, r,r,r,r"))
> > (and:HI (match
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:28:04AM +0530, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> [ another "doubt" ]
You seem to be using the word "doubt" a lot whenever you don't completely
understand something, but this is not what the word means.
It means "to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; to
dist
Mohamed Shafi wrote:
In cris i saw this patten
(define_insn "*andhi_lowpart"
[(set (strict_low_part
(match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=r,r, r,r,r,r"))
(and:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "%0,0, 0,0,0,r")
(match_operand:HI 2 "genera
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have noticed that when strict_low_part is used in a patten we need
> > to use '+' as the constraint modifier if any constraints are used in
> > the patterns.
> > W
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have noticed that when strict_low_part is used in a patten we need
> to use '+' as the constraint modifier if any constraints are used in
> the patterns.
> Why is this so?
Using strict_low_part implies that the register or memory location is
neither
