On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:15:29AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Yea, as it's currently written, it's a bit vague. I think your suggesting
> of saying that VOIDmode should not be used is what we need. I'll leave the
> final word-smithing to you.
Here is what I've committed.
2016-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
On 02/22/2016 07:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:09:41AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/22/2016 06:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Supposedly my recent invalid shift count expansion changes broke
m68k bootstrap, we now really require that the shift expanders
have some non-
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Would you like to somehow stress that operand 2's mode must be specified
> in the instruction pattern or expander? As it says that the compiler will
> convert it to that mode, I'd kind of say that VOIDmode should not be used
> there.
Perhaps a warning could be emitted by
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:09:41AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 06:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >Supposedly my recent invalid shift count expansion changes broke
> >m68k bootstrap, we now really require that the shift expanders
> >have some non-VOIDmode, so that we can convert
On 02/22/2016 06:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Supposedly my recent invalid shift count expansion changes broke
m68k bootstrap, we now really require that the shift expanders
have some non-VOIDmode, so that we can convert_mode it to that
mode. But m68k didn't specify mode. For valid shift co
Hi!
Supposedly my recent invalid shift count expansion changes broke
m68k bootstrap, we now really require that the shift expanders
have some non-VOIDmode, so that we can convert_mode it to that
mode. But m68k didn't specify mode. For valid shift counts
the patch makes no difference beyond fixin
