From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26649 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2011 18:06:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26641 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2011 18:06:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_TX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:06:14 +0000 Received: by wyg30 with SMTP id 30so160431wyg.20 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.198.197 with SMTP id ep5mr7977122wbb.33.1309975573576; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rsandifo.gotadsl.co.uk [82.133.89.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p14sm2013743wbh.30.2011.07.06.11.06.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Bernd Schmidt Mail-Followup-To: Bernd Schmidt ,GCC Patches , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [1/11] Use targetm.shift_truncation_mask more consistently References: <4E0E0310.60406@codesourcery.com> <4E0E0389.5040505@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E0E0389.5040505@codesourcery.com> (Bernd Schmidt's message of "Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:27:37 +0200") Message-ID: <877h7vwagc.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 Bernd Schmidt writes: > At some point we've grown a shift_truncation_mask hook, but we're not > using it everywhere we're masking shift counts. This patch changes the > instances I found. The documentation reads: Note that, unlike @code{SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED}, this function does @emph{not} apply to general shift rtxes; it applies only to instructions that are generated by the named shift patterns. I think you need to update the documentation, and check that existing target definitions do in fact apply to shift rtxes as well. Richard