Really I meant this in reply to the 'Fix
gcc.target/mips/octeon-bbit-2.c for -Os' thread. Sorry for confusing
the issue here.
I don't really have an objection to this one.
David Daney
On 10/08/2012 11:28 AM, David Daney wrote:
On 10/08/2012 11:15 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012, at 9
On 10/08/2012 11:15 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
The gcc.target/mips/ext_ins.c was failing in little endian mode on MIPS because
the compiler is smart enough now to see that 'c' is uninitialized and it can
insert the field 'a' into 'c' with a shift and a
On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> The gcc.target/mips/ext_ins.c was failing in little endian mode on MIPS
> because
> the compiler is smart enough now to see that 'c' is uninitialized and it can
> insert the field 'a' into 'c' with a shift and a full store instead of an
> insert b
The gcc.target/mips/ext_ins.c was failing in little endian mode on MIPS because
the compiler is smart enough now to see that 'c' is uninitialized and it can
insert the field 'a' into 'c' with a shift and a full store instead of an
insert because the store just overwrites unintialized data. I chang
