On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> it's the recurring issue documented in rs6000_expand_ternop_builtin:
>
> Note that a switch statement instead of the sequence of tests
> would be incorrect as many of the CODE_FOR values could be
> CODE_FOR_nothing and
Hi
it's the recurring issue documented in rs6000_expand_ternop_builtin:
Note that a switch statement instead of the sequence of tests
would be incorrect as many of the CODE_FOR values could be
CODE_FOR_nothing and that would yield multiple alternatives
with identical values.
