> Actually, thinking more about it: the assumption we're making in the
> WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != REG_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN condition discussed below is
> really:
>
> /* We assume that the ordering of registers within a multi-register
> value has a consistent endianness: if bytes and register words
>
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Well, I think it's probably grammatical, but how about:
>>
>> If the register representation of a non-scalar mode has holes in it,
>> we expect the scalar units to be concatenated together, with the holes
>> distributed evenly among the scalar units. Each scalar un
Joseph Myers writes:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> > This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
>> > existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
>> > The new form -- particularly the part based on the "block"
>> >
> Well, I think it's probably grammatical, but how about:
>
> If the register representation of a non-scalar mode has holes in it,
> we expect the scalar units to be concatenated together, with the holes
> distributed evenly among the scalar units. Each scalar unit must occupy
> at least
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
>> existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
>
> Yes, I agree that it's an improvement. A few remarks below.
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/rtlanal.c b/gcc/rtlanal.c
>> index ca6cced..7c0acf5 100644
>>
> This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
> existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
Yes, I agree that it's an improvement. A few remarks below.
> diff --git a/gcc/rtlanal.c b/gcc/rtlanal.c
> index ca6cced..7c0acf5 100644
> --- a/gcc/rtlanal.c
> +++ b/gcc/
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
> > existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
> > The new form -- particularly the part based on the "block"
> > concept -- is easier to con
Richard Sandiford writes:
> This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
> existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
> The new form -- particularly the part based on the "block"
> concept -- is easier to convert to polynomial sizes.
>
> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu
This isn't intended to change the behaviour, just rewrite the
existing logic in a different (and hopefully clearer) way.
The new form -- particularly the part based on the "block"
concept -- is easier to convert to polynomial sizes.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
