From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:50:10 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0cdb67fa9517d1a49a4161cd5ecba187@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <880f784f3ea9dbf26e7dc28144d9f412@felloff.net>
References: <880f784f3ea9dbf26e7dc28144d9f412@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] mulgen botch
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cdbf6d60-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Mar 20 16:20:29 EDT 2014, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote:
> sorry... the code from the last mail contains an error...
> theres a missing regfree() in the OASMUL and OASLMUL case when
> hardleft is set. in any case, i'm unsure if it wouldnt be
> better to handle this in mulgen() instead. as this case is
> so rare, it is probably not worth trying to avoid useless
> register moves here.

i suppose you can make the test for a constant expression fail, by simply
changing both instances of this
		if(r->op == OCONST && typechl[n->type->etype]) {
to this
		if(r->op == OCONST && r->vconst != 0 && typechl[n->type->etype]) {

i haven't thought too hard about this, or compiled it, so maybe too easy?

- erik