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] |
Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote on 05/29/2007 10:38:30 AM: > Andrew_Pinski@PlayStation.Sony.Com writes: > > > + for (mode = GET_CLASS_NARROWEST_MODE (MODE_COMPLEX_INT); > > + mode != VOIDmode; > > + mode = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode)) > > + { > > + rtx inner = const_tiny_rtx[i][(int)GET_MODE_INNER (mode)]; > > + const_tiny_rtx[i][(int) mode] = gen_rtx_CONCAT (mode, inner, inner); > > + } > > It seems that that will generate (1, 1) for > const_tiny_rtx[1][CDImode]. Is that really what we want? Wouldn't > (1, 0) make more sense? Or, should this be ambiguous, in which case > shouldn't it indeed be an error to refer to > const_tiny_rtx[1][CDImode]? > > I would support a patch to set const_tiny_rtx[0][CDImode]. And here is a patch which sets only const_tiny_rtx[0] for the complex types. OK? Built and tested on spu-elf without any regressions. Thanks, Andrew Pinski ChangeLog: * emit-rtl.c (init_emit_once): Intilize const_tiny_rtx[0] for complex modes (both int and real).
Attachment:
fixuninit.diff.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |