On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
> existence of a conditional move instruction for a given mode, with one
> that actually checks what it's supposed to. Add a test case so we don't
> miss such things in future.
>
>
Thanks, Andrew!
Bill
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 14:17 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM, William J. Schmidt
> > wrote:
> >> Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
> >> existence of a con
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM, William J. Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
>> existence of a conditional move instruction for a given mode, with one
>> that actually checks what it's su
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM, William J. Schmidt
wrote:
> Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
> existence of a conditional move instruction for a given mode, with one
> that actually checks what it's supposed to. Add a test case so we don't
> miss such things in
Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
existence of a conditional move instruction for a given mode, with one
that actually checks what it's supposed to. Add a test case so we don't
miss such things in future.
The test is powerpc-specific. It would be good to have an
