On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:12:54, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/13 00:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the consistency of bitregion_start/end ,
>>>
>>> they should either both be zero, or
>>>
>>> bitregion_start <= bitpos && bi
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:12:54, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 12/04/13 00:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the consistency of bitregion_start/end ,
>>
>> they should either both be zero, or
>>
>> bitregion_start <= bitpos && bitpos+bitsize-1 <= bitregion_end
> Presumably to satisfy the consecut
On 12/04/13 00:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Regarding the consistency of bitregion_start/end ,
they should either both be zero, or
bitregion_start <= bitpos && bitpos+bitsize-1 <= bitregion_end
Presumably to satisfy the consecutive bitfields are a single memory
location stuff from C++11. Thus t
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 22:55:32, Jef Law wrote:
>
> On 12/03/13 06:27, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> This comment is completely out of sync: There is no longer any force_reg in
>>> that if-block,
>>> and a constant address in TO_RTX has SImode or DImode in GET_MODE (XEXP
>>> (to_rtx, 0))
>>> I do not kno
On 12/03/13 06:27, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
This comment is completely out of sync: There is no longer any force_reg in
that if-block,
and a constant address in TO_RTX has SImode or DImode in GET_MODE (XEXP
(to_rtx, 0))
I do not know how to make it a VOIDmode, therefore the comment does not help
