From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26218 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2011 15:55:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 26210 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2011 15:55:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de (HELO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de) (81.169.146.160) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:55:01 +0000 X-RZG-AUTH: :LXoWVUeid/7A29J/hMvvT2k715jHQaJercGObUOFkj18odoYNahU4Q== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (business-188-111-022-002.static.arcor-ip.net [188.111.22.2]) by post.strato.de (fruni mo10) (RZmta 25.18) with ESMTPA id 9056e5n5HEIrjA ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:51:09 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <4DFB77EC.1000000@gjlay.de> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:32:00 -0000 From: Georg-Johann Lay User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Henderson CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Denis Chertykov , "Eric B. Weddington" , Anatoly Sokolov Subject: Re: [Patch, AVR]: PR49313, fix PR29524 References: <4DF87FAD.4090104@gjlay.de> <4DFA55B2.4010406@redhat.com> <4DFB1C6F.1050807@gjlay.de> <4DFB73FC.2030400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DFB73FC.2030400@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01346.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson schrieb: > On 06/17/2011 02:20 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> Richard Henderson schrieb: >>> On 06/15/2011 02:47 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> >> Yes, you are right. Following patchlet ok? >> >> Johann >> >> * config/avr/libgcc.S (__ctzsi2, __ctzhi2): >> Map zero to 255. > > You'd also delete the COUNT_LEADING_ZEROS_0 definition in longlong.h. > > r~ __clzsi2(0) still returns 32 as it does not use ctz. So if implementation of ctz affects validity of COUNT_LEADING_ZEROS_0 that's bit confusing... Johann