On 07/15/2010 02:26 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
The reason you pointed out is for SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED. Please note,
that we don't use memory_operands, but even in register operand case,
"bt" insn doesn't truncate the bit-count operand, but performs modulo
operation on it. I.E, "bt %reg, 75" will not
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
>> hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
>>
>> int test (int a, int c)
>> {
>> return a<
On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
int test (int a, int c)
{
return a<< (c& 0x1f);
}
The macro was defined as:
+/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCAT
Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg00456.html
>
> you proposed to take care of this in the 4.1 (formerly 3.6) timeframe fixing
> all places where shift rtxes are generated besides optabs.
> Is this still on your todo list?
Yes, but so a
