On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Paolo Bonzini<bonz...@gnu.org> wrote:
Interesting, first time I hear about this...
... except that no target sets the macros to 2, and all of them could
(as far as I could see). Looks like the code trumps the documentation;
how does this look?
"No target sets to 2"? You mean like mips? You forgot to look at the
corresponding CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO.
I'll admit I hadn't been paying attention when sandra added the patch
in question though...
* optabs.c (expand_ffs): Check CTZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO
against 1.
* doc/tm.texi (Misc): Invert meaning of 1 and 2 for
CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO and CTZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO.
So... no, I don't think this is a good idea.
r~
