Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-06 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Kenneth Zadeck writes: >>> On 11/02/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-exte

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-04 Thread Richard Biener
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Kenneth Zadeck writes: >> On 11/02/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- >>> there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. >>> Nonzero/true BImode in

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Kenneth Zadeck
On 11/02/2013 10:25 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Kenneth Zadeck writes: On 11/02/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. Nonzero/true BImode integers are stored as S

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Richard Sandiford
Kenneth Zadeck writes: > On 11/02/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- >> there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. >> Nonzero/true BImode integers are stored as STORE_FLAG_VALUE, >> which can be 1 rather

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Kenneth Zadeck
On 11/02/2013 06:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. Nonzero/true BImode integers are stored as STORE_FLAG_VALUE, which can be 1 rather than -1. So (const_int 1) can be a

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Richard Sandiford
Mike Stump writes: > On Nov 2, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- >> there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. > > I'm thinking this needs commentary in wide-int.h, though, not sure what > we'd say

Re: [wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 2, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- > there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. I'm thinking this needs commentary in wide-int.h, though, not sure what we'd say...

[wide-int] Do not treat rtxes as sign-extended

2013-11-02 Thread Richard Sandiford
Bah. After all that effort, it turns out that -- by design -- there is one special case where CONST_INTs are not sign-extended. Nonzero/true BImode integers are stored as STORE_FLAG_VALUE, which can be 1 rather than -1. So (const_int 1) can be a valid BImode integer -- and consequently (const_int