Re: why don't have 'umul' rtx code

Eric Fisher wrote: hi I'm not clear why we have 'udiv', but don't have 'umul' for Standard Pattern Names. Does I need to define a nameless pattern for it? Because non-widening multiplication is the same for signed and unsigned. We have: mul3 mul3 (signed x signed) umul3 (u

why don't have 'umul' rtx code

hi I'm not clear why we have 'udiv', but don't have 'umul' for Standard Pattern Names. Does I need to define a nameless pattern for it? Thanks in advance. eric