Hi, I have updated the comment above GET_MODE_INNER and while there I have fixed a spelling mistake in the comment above GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE.
Tested:
aarch64 and aarch64_be - no regressions in gcc testsuite
x86_64 - bootstrap build, no testsuite regressions
arm-none-eabi - no regressions in gcc testsuite
Run contrib/config-list.mk - only build failures are ones that fail anyway with
warnings being treated as errors.
Hope this is ok.
Cheers,
Dave.
2015-07-28 David Sherwood <david.sherw...@arm.com>
gcc/
* config/arm/arm.c (neon_element_bits, neon_valid_immediate): Call
GET_MODE_INNER unconditionally.
* config/spu/spu.c (arith_immediate_p): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_build_signbit_mask): Likewise. New variable.
* expmed.c (synth_mult): Remove check for VOIDmode result from
GET_MODE_INNER.
(expand_mult_const): Likewise.
* fold-const.c (): Replace call to element_precision with call to
GET_MODE_PRECISION.
* genmodes.c (emit_mode_inner_inline): Replace void_mode->name with
m->name.
(emit_mode_inner): Likewise.
* lto-streamer-out.c (lto_write_mode_table): Update GET_MODE_INNER
result check.
* machmode.h (GET_MODE_INNER): Update comment.
(GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE): Simplify and fix spelling mistake in comment.
(GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION): Simplify.
(element_precision): Remove.
* rtlanal.c (subreg_get_info): Call GET_MODE_INNER unconditionally.
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_immed_subreg): Likewise.
* stor-layout.c (bitwise_type_for_mode): Update assert.
(element_precision): Remove.
>
> On 07/27/2015 04:25 AM, David Sherwood wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Part 1 of this change is a clean-up. I have changed calls to GET_MODE_INNER
> > (m)
> > so that it returns m in cases where there is no inner mode. This simplifies
> > some
> > of the calling code by removing the need to check for VOIDmode and allows
> > calling it unconditionally. I also removed element_precision () as it was
> > only
> > called in one place and thought it neater to call GET_MODE_PRECISION
> > explicitly.
> >
> > Parts 2-4 will include further tidy-ups and optimisations based on [1/N].
> >
> > Good to go?
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Sherwood.
> >
> > 2015-07-17 David Sherwood<david.sherw...@arm.com>
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/arm/arm.c (neon_element_bits, neon_valid_immediate): Call
> > GET_MODE_INNER unconditionally.
> > * config/spu/spu.c (arith_immediate_p): Likewise.
> > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_build_signbit_mask): Likewise. New
> > variable.
> > * expmed.c (synth_mult): Remove check for VOIDmode result from
> > GET_MODE_INNER.
> > (expand_mult_const): Likewise.
> > * fold-const.c (): Replace call to element_precision with call to
> > GET_MODE_PRECISION.
> > * genmodes.c (emit_mode_inner_inline): Replace void_mode->name with
> > m->name.
> > (emit_mode_inner): Likewise.
> > * lto-streamer-out.c (lto_write_mode_table): Update GET_MODE_INNER
> > result check.
> > * machmode.h (GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE): Simplify.
> > (GET_MODE_UNIT_PRECISION): Likewise.
> > * rtlanal.c (subreg_get_info): Call GET_MODE_INNER unconditionally.
> > * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_immed_subreg): Likewise.
> > * stor-layout.c (bitwise_type_for_mode): Update assert.
> > (element_precision): Remove.
> Somehow my brain kept translating INNER into NARROWER. Naturally I was
> having considerable trouble seeing how the patch could be correct ;-)
> Looking at insn-modes.h cleared things up quickly.
>
> In a lot of ways this makes GET_INNER_MODE act more like
> GET_MODE_NUNITS, which is probably good.
>
> You need to update the comment for GET_MODE_INNER in machmode.h to
> reflect the change in its return value for non-vector modes.
>
> With that update, this patch is fine.
>
> jeff
mode_inner1.patch
Description: Binary data
