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: [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: "Henderson, Stuart" <Stuart dot Henderson at analog dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:42:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS
References: <05E9E85E39C35B4D96ED3A3190E35A10A2E0EE3E68@LIMKCMBX1.ad.analog.com> <4D9367C0.4070409@redhat.com> <05E9E85E39C35B4D96ED3A3190E35A10A2E0F414E6@LIMKCMBX1.ad.analog.com>

>  	(rotate:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "")
> -		   (match_operand:SI 2 "immediate_operand" "")))]
> +		   (match_operand:SI 2 "const_int_operand" "")))]
>    ""
>  {
> -  if (INTVAL (operands[2]) != 16)
> +  if (GET_CODE (operands[2]) != CONST_INT || INTVAL (operands[2]) != 16)
>      FAIL;

The point was, that you'd not need the CONST_INT check anymore,
because it's handled by the predicate.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS
  - From: Bernd Schmidt

References:
- [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS
  - From: Henderson, Stuart
- Re: [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS
  - From: Richard Henderson
- RE: [Patch] Bfin: Ensure rotrsi and rotlsi don't accept non-const INTVALS
  - From: Henderson, Stuart

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