On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
>>
>> /* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
>> that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
>> gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
>> == trunc_int_for_mode (INTVA
Hello!
> PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
>
> /* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
> that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
> gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
> == trunc_int_for_mode (INTVAL (newval), GET_MODE (oldval)));
>
> triggering whil
> PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
>
> /* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
>that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
> gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
> == trunc_int_for_mode (INTVAL (newval), GET_MODE (oldval)));
>
>
Richard Sandiford wrote:
>PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
>
> /* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
>that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
> gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
> == trunc_int_for_mode (INTVAL (newval), GET
PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
/* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
== trunc_int_for_mode (INTVAL (newval), GET_MODE (oldval)));
triggering