On 22 November 2023 23:23:41 CET, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 11/20/23 11:56, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 05:47:56PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> ...
>>> + enum rtx_code xcode = GET_CODE (x);
>>> + if (xcode == SET)
>>> + {
>>> + const_rtx dst = SET_DEST (x);
>>> + rtx src = SET_SRC (x);
>>> + const_rtx y;
>>> + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT bit = 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* The code of the RHS of a SET. */
>>> + enum rtx_code code = GET_CODE (src);
>>> +
>>> + /* ?!? How much of this should mirror SET handling, potentially
>>> + being shared? */
>>> + if (SUBREG_BYTE (dst).is_constant () && SUBREG_P (dst))
>>
>> Shouldn't SUBREG_P be checked first like:
>> if (SUBREG_P (dst) && SUBREG_BYTE (dst).is_constant ())
>Yes, absolutely. It'll be fixed in the next update.
>
>This also highlighted that I never added pru-elf to the configurations in my
>tester. I remember thinking that it needed to be added, but obviously that
>mental TODO got lost. I've just fixed that.
And please drop the superfluous enum from rtx_code while at it?
TIA
