This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: insv vs one-bit fields

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: rth at redhat dot com
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:56:38 -0500
Subject: Re: insv vs one-bit fields
References: <200509030140.j831eKAS007043@greed.delorie.com> <20050904174712.GA6886@redhat.com> <200601032147.k03LlV73028561@greed.delorie.com> <200601200256.k0K2us9j019857@greed.delorie.com> <20060120213933.GA26903@redhat.com> <200601202144.k0KLi4w4029802@greed.delorie.com> <20060120215035.GF26903@redhat.com>

> m68k and ia64 spring to mind.  Both have set-one-bit-in-register
> type instructions.  But the point isn't that x86-64 continues to
> build, but that it's still using the right patterns.

If you could suggest a proper testing strategy, I'm willing to test
it.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: insv vs one-bit fields
  - From: Richard Henderson

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