This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [v850 patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: rth at redhat dot com
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:30:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [v850 patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
References: <200311032207.hA3M7uR10661@greed.delorie.com> <20031103224342.GC19377@redhat.com> <200311032302.hA3N2Uw11436@greed.delorie.com> <20031103230719.GD19377@redhat.com> <200311040142.hA41gQQ25334@greed.delorie.com> <20031104082819.GA20938@redhat.com>

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:42:26PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > ! 	  (match_operand 2 "const_int_operand" "J,K")))]
> 
> It shouldn't be modeless.  SImode at minimum.

Will an SImode match_operand match a VOIDmode const_int ?

And is the patch otherwise OK, if I add :SI ?

References:
- [patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: [patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: [patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [v850 patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: [v850 patch?] num_sign_bit_copies1: sign_extending consts
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]