On 08/31/2009 07:20 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Ok, is it normal to see a ashift with a negative value though or is
this already sign of a (potentially) different problem?
I seem to recall that it's normal. Combine was originally
written in the days of VAX, where negative shifts were all
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/31/2009 02:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
>>
>> I am going to try this but shouldn't it be :
>>
>> (set (reg:QI new-scratch))
>> (zero_extract:DI ...))
>
> No.
Ok, I think I understand why not:
>> (insn 9 8 10 3 struct4
On 08/31/2009 02:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
I am going to try this but shouldn't it be :
(set (reg:QI new-scratch))
(zero_extract:DI ...))
No.
Any ideas?
Nope. You'll have to debug it.
r~
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/31/2009 01:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
>>
>> If I replace this :
>> (define_insn "extzv"
>> [(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "")
>> (zero_extract (match_operand 1 "register_operand" "")
>>
On 08/31/2009 01:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
If I replace this :
(define_insn "extzv"
[(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "")
(zero_extract (match_operand 1 "register_operand" "")
(match_operand 2 "const_int_operand" "")
(ma
Sorry, you are correct. That line is the :
gcc_assert (outermode != VOIDmode);
of the simplify_subreg function.
However, I've played around with it and saw that I made a mistake when
writing up this question, I simplified what I had put in my MD file,
and actually made a mistake. I apologize.
I
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> But I get this message:
> struct4.c: In function 'goo':
> struct4.c:32: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at
> simplify-rtx.c:4923
>
> Does anybody know how can I solve this issue ?
You need to start by looking at line 4923 of simplify-rtx.c to see wha
