On 6/29/19 9:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:13:43PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> (Hopefully one day GET_MODE_SIZE & co. will assert on BLKmode and VOIDmode.)
>> Yea. Not sure why. There's probably a compile-time hit, but I suspect
>> it'd turn up some interesting bugs
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:13:43PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > (Hopefully one day GET_MODE_SIZE & co. will assert on BLKmode and VOIDmode.)
> Yea. Not sure why. There's probably a compile-time hit, but I suspect
> it'd turn up some interesting bugs.
There turn out to be at least twenty or so plac
On 6/17/19 3:08 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Kugan Vivekanandarajah writes:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As pointed to me by Jeff, after committing patch to fix PR88834, some
>> tests are failing for target rx-elf. This is because in
>> preferred_mem_scale_factor we end up with mem_mode which is BLKmode
>>
Kugan Vivekanandarajah writes:
> Hi All,
>
> As pointed to me by Jeff, after committing patch to fix PR88834, some
> tests are failing for target rx-elf. This is because in
> preferred_mem_scale_factor we end up with mem_mode which is BLKmode
> and hence GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE returns zero.
>
> I have
Hi All,
As pointed to me by Jeff, after committing patch to fix PR88834, some
tests are failing for target rx-elf. This is because in
preferred_mem_scale_factor we end up with mem_mode which is BLKmode
and hence GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE returns zero.
I have fixed this by checking for BLKmode. I believe
