On 11/09/11 18:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So here is hopefully last iteration of that.
>
> Negative constants that trunc_int_for_mode to the same value
> are IMHO just fine too, similarly for ZERO_EXTEND 0x for HImode
> should be fine too. On the other side, if mode is DImode and
> outer mode
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:47:02PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Yes, I think I prefer this.
So here is hopefully last iteration of that.
Negative constants that trunc_int_for_mode to the same value
are IMHO just fine too, similarly for ZERO_EXTEND 0x for HImode
should be fine too. On the ot
On 11/09/11 17:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> --- gcc/combine.c.jj 2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100
> @@ -11397,13 +11397,20 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code code,
>later on, and then we wouldn't know whether to sign- or
>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 04:44:55PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/09/11 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > --- gcc/combine.c.jj2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100
> > +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100
> > @@ -11397,9 +11397,12 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code co
On 11/09/11 16:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> --- gcc/combine.c.jj 2011-11-08 23:35:12.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/combine.c 2011-11-09 10:06:27.20764 +0100
> @@ -11397,9 +11397,12 @@ simplify_comparison (enum rtx_code code,
>later on, and then we wouldn't know whether to sign- or
>
Hi!
This patch essentially reverts part of Bernd's 2011-07-06 changes,
which was IMHO wrong. As const_op here is a constant in wider mode than
MODE (which is the inner mode of the SIGN_EXTEND), the old code
(and what this patch is restoring) didn't check just that the sign bit
is clear, but also
