On 27 March 2013 10:05, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Frederic Riss <frederic.r...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Here, the code trying to expand a signed by unsigned widening multiply >> explicitly checks that the operand isn't a constant. Why is that? I >> removed that condition to try to find the failing cases, but the few >> million random multiplies that I threw at it didn't fail in any >> visible way. > > Not sure, the limitation does not make sense to me. Probably the > code assumes that it would have been easy to convert the constant > to the same signedness as treeop0. Simply removing the check > seems correct to me.
Thanks for the confirmation. I'll try to see if these modifications pass regstrap on a primary target and then maybe submit a patch. Fred
