Eric Botcazou writes:
> > The condition would look like this, What do you think?
> >
> > if (!(GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode) != GET_MODE_PRECISION (innermode)
> > && GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> > && GET_MODE_SIZE (innermode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> >
> The condition would look like this, What do you think?
>
> if (!(GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode) != GET_MODE_PRECISION (innermode)
> && GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> && GET_MODE_SIZE (innermode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> && WORD_REGISTER_O
> The condition would look like this, What do you think?
>
> if (!(GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode) != GET_MODE_PRECISION (innermode)
> && GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> && GET_MODE_SIZE (innermode) <= UNITS_PER_WORD
> && WORD_REGISTER_O
Hi Eric,
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Matthew
> Sorry for the slow reply, been away for a few days
>
> Eric Botcazou writes:
> > > This patch is a minimal change to prevent (subreg(mem)) from being
> > > simplified to use the outer mode for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.
> > > There is high pr
Sorry for the slow reply, been away for a few days
Eric Botcazou writes:
> > This patch is a minimal change to prevent (subreg(mem)) from being
> > simplified to use the outer mode for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS. There
> > is high probability of refining and/or re-implementing this for GCC 8
>
> This patch is a minimal change to prevent (subreg(mem)) from being
> simplified to use the outer mode for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS. There
> is high probability of refining and/or re-implementing this for GCC 8
> but such a change would be too invasive. This change at least ensures
> correctness
On 02/07/2017 09:08 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Hi,
This patch is a minimal change to prevent (subreg(mem)) from being
simplified to use the outer mode for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS. There
is high probability of refining and/or re-implementing this for GCC 8
but such a change would be too invas
Hi,
This patch is a minimal change to prevent (subreg(mem)) from being
simplified to use the outer mode for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS. There
is high probability of refining and/or re-implementing this for GCC 8
but such a change would be too invasive. This change at least ensures
correctness but
