On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Jeff Law wrote: > On 08/09/2016 04:58 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01869.html > This seems to be dependent upon other patches, this is not OK until all > prereqs are resolved. > > You're using SI/DI in the descriptions, but then using more traditional C > types like int, unsigned, long long in the actual test. > > If you intent is really to nail down SI/DI mode testing, then the way to go > will be to define typedefs that correspond directly to SI and DI modes: > > typedef unsigned int u32 __attribute__((mode(SI))); > typedef signed int s32 __attribute__((mode(SI))); > > You can do something similar for DImode. > > It may not matter because of your effective-target {divmod,divmod_simode} > selectors, but it still seems cleaner. > > With that change, this is OK when its prereqs are resolved.
Note that for the main patch I don't like the current state of the divmod libcall issue. I think we need to solve this in a more reasonable manner and not expose this oddness to a GIMPLE level pass. Any ideas welcome - I don't have a very good one :/ The best idea I have is to not lie about libfunc availability in the optab handler. Richard.
