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.

Reply via email to