Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:07:28PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > Since times immemorial there has been const_int_rtx for all values from
>> > -64 to 64, but only constm1_rtx..const2_rtx have been available for
>> > convenient use.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:32:54PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 4:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >We have has const0_rtx etc. since forever, this patch just increases the
> >range (to those values that have had guaranteed unique RTXes since
> >decades as well).
> Yea, but often what you
On 6/2/2021 4:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:07:28PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Segher Boessenkool writes:
Since times immemorial there has been const_int_rtx for all values from
-64 to 64, but only constm1_rtx..const2_rtx have been available for
conve
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:07:28PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > Since times immemorial there has been const_int_rtx for all values from
> > -64 to 64, but only constm1_rtx..const2_rtx have been available for
> > convenient use. Change this, so that we can
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Since times immemorial there has been const_int_rtx for all values from
> -64 to 64, but only constm1_rtx..const2_rtx have been available for
> convenient use. Change this, so that we can use all values in
> {-64,...,64} in RTL easily. This matters, because then we w
