Steve Ellcey <sell...@marvell.com> writes: > On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 11:39 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> >> Steve Ellcey <sell...@marvell.com> writes: >> > On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 17:34 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > > > + (match_operand:TX 2 "register_operand" "w")) >> > > > + (set (mem:TX (plus:P (match_dup 0) >> > > > + (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" >> > > > "n"))) >> > > > + (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])] >> > > >> > > Think this last part should be: >> > > >> > > (set (mem:TX (plus:P (plus:P (match_dup 0) >> > > (match_dup 4)) >> > > (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" >> > > "n"))) >> > > (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])] >> > >> > I think you are right about this. What I have for >> > loadwb_pair<TX:mode>_<P:mode> matches what is there for >> > loadwb_pair<GPF:mode>_<P:mode>. If this one is wrong, then I assume >> > the others are wrong too? This won't make a practical difference since >> > we call these with gen_loadwb_pair*_* calls and not via pattern >> > recognition, but still they should be right. Should I change them >> > all? I did not change this as part of this patch. >> >> I think we should fix the new pattern, but I agree fixing the others >> should be a separate patch. >> >> Patch LGTM with that change. > > I am not sure this is right. I created a patch (separate from any of > the SIMD changes) to fix the storewb_pair<GPI:mode>_<P:mode> and > storewb_pair<GPF:mode>_<P:mode> and when I try to build GCC with > that change, gcc aborts while building libgcc. I didn't think > this change could affect the build but it appears to do so.
You're right, sorry, I'd misread the code. Patch LGTM as posted. Thanks, Richard
