This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Sign-extend CONST_INTs within their modes
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Sign-extend CONST_INTs within their modes
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 10 Apr 2001 18:25:06 -0300
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, bob dot koninckx at mech dot kuleuven dot ac dot be
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <org0gb1tmu.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><jmbsqzv7bi.fsf@geoffk.org> <or4rwb5pi2.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><200104022312.QAA09069@geoffk.org><orlmpgk7v3.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20010410135011.B12757@redhat.com>
On Apr 10, 2001, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:22:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> @@ -1108,6 +1108,12 @@ general_operand (op, mode)
>> && GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) != MODE_PARTIAL_INT)
>> return 0;
>>
>> +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
>> + if (GET_CODE (op) == CONST_INT
>> + && trunc_int_for_mode (INTVAL (op), mode) != INTVAL (op))
>> + return 0;
>> +#endif
> I don't think these should be ENABLE_CHECKING. If we did that it
> could drastically change what patterns combine thinks it can create.
Yeah... When they would abort () otherwise, making it conditional
made sense. Now that it may actually affect the generated code, it
shouldn't be conditional.
> Otherwise ok.
Thanks, I'll remove the #ifdefs and check it in tonight.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me