On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The asm comparison showed a problem with my r204593 change, which dropped
> a "val.mask &" in the second hunk below.
>
> Seeing that the problem was in ccp made me look at the whole file again.
> I noticed that we'd changed the VARYING m
The asm comparison showed a problem with my r204593 change, which dropped
a "val.mask &" in the second hunk below.
Seeing that the problem was in ccp made me look at the whole file again.
I noticed that we'd changed the VARYING mask value from -1 to 1, which
didn't look intentional.
Tested on x86
