On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:22:45AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> While I'm far from an expert here this doesn't look right and instead the
> const_0_to_255_operand looks bogus to me in not properly taking into
> account 'mode'.
I think the bug is in use of const_0_to_255* predicates with QImode o
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:22 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:25 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:23 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 8:29 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 5:57 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> (const_int -1 [0x])
>
> unless we use gen_int_mode (255, SImode)
>
Here is the v3 patch which adds the check with TYPE_UNSIGNED (type).
OK for master?
H.J.
---
When passing 0xff as an unsigned char function argument with the C frontend
promotion, expand_normal gets
