This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
- From: "Paulo Matos" <pmatos at broadcom dot com>
- To: "Mikael Pettersson" <mikpe at it dot uu dot se>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:18:31 +0000
- Subject: RE: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
- References: <19EB96622A777C4AB91610E763265F461C522A at SJEXCHMB14 dot corp dot ad dot broadcom dot com> <20868 dot 59398 dot 251606 dot 991253 at pilspetsen dot it dot uu dot se>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Pettersson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 04 May 2013 11:51
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
> I can't comment on the code in question, but the backend for m68k may be
> since it defines STORE_FLAG_VALUE as -1. Do you have a testcase that would
> wrong code, or a patch to cure the issue? I'd be happy to do some testing on
I have looked at m68k code and it seems that the predicate (cc reg) is FPmode.
I can't see a definition of FPmode anywhere (where is it?) but I assume it's not a
defined as a single bit. I think we are making the mistake of using BImode for this
and therefore STORE_FLAG_VALUE of -1 is invalid (or unsupported because it's meaningless).
So I guess the problem (which might not be a problem after all can't be reproduced in m68k and
it's fine. I will keep researching this issue and will get back to you if I find
anything interesting. In the meantime, where is FPmode defined in m68k?