[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
incorrect code for the following test case:
[snip]
I've only had a very quick look at your code, but I have a feeling
thatthis is an i
From: Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
> > incorrect code for the following test case:
> [snip]
>
> I've only had a very quick look at your code, but I have a feeling
> thatthis is an instance of t
From: Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
> > incorrect code for the following test case:
> [snip]
>
> I've only had a very quick look at your code, but I have a feeling
> thatthis is an instance of t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
incorrect code for the following test case:
[snip]
I've only had a very quick look at your code, but I have a feeling that
this is an instance of the kind of slip-up with GO_IF_MODE_DEPENDENT_ADDRESS
th
Hi,
My port, based on (GCC) 4.2.0 20061002 (experimental), is producing
incorrect code for the following test case:
int f(short *p){
int sum, i;
sum = 0;
for(i = 0; i < 256; i++){
sum += *p++ & 0xFF;
}
return sum;
}
The RTL snippet of interest, before combine, is,
(insn 23 22
