On Wed, 4 May 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > I think I did it that way because the old code tried to re-construct > > the type of the original amount. I can surely simply use op1 here > > if that is preferred. > > Right, but it used the value of OP1 so I think the new code should as well.
Ok, I'll change it that way. > > Btw, do you happen to know any target that would excercise this code > > choosing from x86, ppc, s390 and ia64? > > All have rotate instructions so this seems to be a wash. Hm. I guess people will scream if something breaks (I can't imagine what though). Richard.
