On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 02:54:32AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This looks to be an incomplete transition of the aarch64 backend to
> CONST_WIDE_INT. I haven't checked to see if it's a regression from
> gcc5, but I suspect not, since there should have been similar checks
> for CONST_DOUBLE.
>
On 01/25/2016 01:32 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> +case CONST_WIDE_INT:
> + *cost = 0;
> + for (unsigned int n = CONST_WIDE_INT_NUNITS(x), i = 0; i < n; ++i)
> +{
> + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT e = CONST_WIDE_INT_ELT(x, i);
> + if (e != 0)
> +*cost += COSTS_N_INSNS (aa
Hi Richard,
On 24/01/16 10:54, Richard Henderson wrote:
This looks to be an incomplete transition of the aarch64 backend to
CONST_WIDE_INT. I haven't checked to see if it's a regression from gcc5, but I
suspect not, since there should have been similar checks for CONST_DOUBLE.
FWIW, I defi
This looks to be an incomplete transition of the aarch64 backend to
CONST_WIDE_INT. I haven't checked to see if it's a regression from gcc5, but I
suspect not, since there should have been similar checks for CONST_DOUBLE.
This is probably gcc7 fodder, but it helped me debug another TImode PR.
