Ping?
On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:48 AM, nick clifton wrote:
>> OK by me, although I cannot approve that particular patch.
>
> I know, the intent is for someone that can, to approve it.
>
>> But I ran into a very strange problem. With your PARTIAL_I
On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:48 AM, nick clifton wrote:
> OK by me, although I cannot approve that particular patch.
I know, the intent is for someone that can, to approve it.
> But I ran into a very strange problem. With your PARTIAL_INT_MODE_NAME patch
> applied GCC started erroneously eliminating
Hi Mike,
I must say though, it seems wrong to have to provide a sign-extend pointer
pattern when pointers (on the MSP430) are unsigned.
Agreed. If we instead ask, is it sane for gcc to ever want to signed extend in
this case, the answer appears to be no. Why does it, ptr_mode is SImode, an
On Sep 23, 2013, at 8:24 AM, nick clifton wrote:
>> +(define_insn "extendpsisi2"
>> + [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r")
>> +(sign_extend:SI (match_operand:PSI 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "0")))]
>> + "TARGET_LARGE"
>> + "# extend psi to si in %0"
>> +)
>> +
>> ;; Look for
> If we instead ask, is it sane for gcc to ever want to signed extend
> in this case,
IIRC I've seen this due to the fact that pointer math is always
signed, and since gcc has no way of having a PSImode-sized size_t, all
pointer math is done in signed SImode, then the result is truncated to
PSImo
Hi Guys,
I am applying the patch below to add a couple of minor tweaks to the
msp430.h header file. The first is to pass the -md command line
option to the assembler, to enable the copying of data from ROM to
RAM. (This is a code size optimization. The assembler and linker
conspire to
