Re: why don't have 'umul' rtx code

[Paolo Bonzini]

Eric Fisher wrote:
hi
I'm not clear why we have 'udiv', but don't have 'umul' for Standard
Pattern Names. Does I need to define a nameless pattern for it?

Because non-widening multiplication is the same for signed and unsigned. 
 We have:

  mul<mode1>3
  mul<mode1><mode2>3       (signed x signed)
  umul<mode1><mode2>3      (unsigned x unsigned)
  usmul<mode1><mode2>3     (unsigned x signed)
  umul<mode1>3_highpart    (unsigned x unsigned)
  smul<mode1>3_highpart    (signed x signed)

Paolo