on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > Thanks for your quick and insight review! > > 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>> >>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>> Is this ok for trunk? >> >> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >> >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ >> 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ >> 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >> >> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >> > Good question! > > And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". > For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! > And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment > is ok.
ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored in a better way. Thanks! BR, Kewen