Re: [RFA] New pass for sign/zero extension elimination

[rep.dot.nop@gmail.com]

On 22 November 2023 23:23:41 CET, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 11/20/23 11:56, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 05:47:56PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> ...

>>> +      enum rtx_code xcode = GET_CODE (x);
>>> +      if (xcode == SET)
>>> +	{
>>> +	  const_rtx dst = SET_DEST (x);
>>> +	  rtx src = SET_SRC (x);
>>> +	  const_rtx y;
>>> +	  unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT bit = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	  /* The code of the RHS of a SET.  */
>>> +	  enum rtx_code code = GET_CODE (src);
>>> +
>>> +	  /* ?!? How much of this should mirror SET handling, potentially
>>> +	     being shared?   */
>>> +	  if (SUBREG_BYTE (dst).is_constant () && SUBREG_P (dst))
>> 
>> Shouldn't SUBREG_P be checked first like:
>> 	  if (SUBREG_P (dst) && SUBREG_BYTE (dst).is_constant ())
>Yes, absolutely. It'll be fixed in the next update.
>
>This also highlighted that I never added pru-elf to the configurations in my tester.  I remember thinking that it needed to be added, but obviously that mental TODO got lost.  I've just fixed that.


And please drop the superfluous enum from rtx_code while at it?

TIA