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: Extend mode macros

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:14:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Extend mode macros
References: <41A30B3D.4060501@codesourcery.com> <wvn8y8sdflb.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com> <41A34340.4000304@codesourcery.com>

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:03:44PM +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> >But why do they need to have different constants?  It looks from your
> >example altivec.md patch like they're doing the same thing conceptually,
> >but with different sizes, so why not use a single constant for them all?
> >recog checks both the mode and the constant so there's not going to be
> >any ambiguity.
> I don't know, Aldy?

No reason at all.  They should prolly use the same constant.

Aldy

References:
- Extend mode macros
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: Extend mode macros
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: Extend mode macros
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

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