On 11/26/23 09:42, rep.dot....@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Sure.
jeff
