Re: RFA: More uses of wi:: instead of const_binop

2014-05-10 Thread Mike Stump
On May 10, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Following on from the patch for PR61136, this patch avoids some other > uses of const_binop in which we know both operands are INTEGER_CSTs > and where a wi:: routine would do. As before, the idea is to avoid > creating an INTEGER_CST only

RFA: More uses of wi:: instead of const_binop

2014-05-10 Thread Richard Sandiford
Following on from the patch for PR61136, this patch avoids some other uses of const_binop in which we know both operands are INTEGER_CSTs and where a wi:: routine would do. As before, the idea is to avoid creating an INTEGER_CST only to test whether it's zero. Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to i