Re: 3.2 bug or something really odd.

[Dmitry <diwil at eis dot ru>]

Hi Kazu,

That's exactly what I'm doing in expander:
if(INTVAL(operands[2]) != 1 || INTVAL(operands[3]) <= 0)
      FAIL;
But either FAIL directive fails or 3rd and 2nd operands swapped on combine 
pass.

Cheers,
Dmitry.


On Wednesday 22 January 2003 14:09, Kazu Hirata wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> > As follows from the expander defenition, if the operands[2] not
> > equal to 1 the extzv parrern must be ignored.  However, as follows
> > from the rtl dump, gcc ignores 'FAIL' directive and issues tricky
> > code.  The extzv pattern first appears after 'combine' pass.
>
> If I remember correctly, extract_bit_field() in expmed.c does not
> check all the conditions.  Write your extzv pattern using
> define_expand.  If you want ensure that operands[2] is (const_int 1),
> use FAIL.
>
> KazU Hirata