On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 06:49:17AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 09:49:02AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:33:49PM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > > @@ -179,11 +183,11 @@
> > > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r,r")
> > > (rotatert:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r,r")
> > > (match_operand:SI 2 "reg_or_u6_operand" "r,n")))]
> > > - "TARGET_ROR"
> > > + "TARGET_ROR || TARGET_RORI"
> > > "@
> > > l.ror\t%0, %1, %2
> > > l.rori\t%0, %1, %2"
> > > - [(set_attr "insn_support" "*,shftimm")])
> > > + [(set_attr "insn_support" "ror,rori")])
> >
> > Does this work? If you use -mno-ror -mrori? It will then allow generating
> > a reg for the second operand, and ICE later on, as far as I can see?
>
> It does seem to work. Why would it produce an internal compiler error?
>
> One thing I have is RegectNegative on mror and mrori, so -mno-ror will not be
> allowed and cause an error.
But both options are off by default, and neither is enabled or disabled
based on the setting of the other.
> Example:
>
> $ cat ./gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/or1k/ror-4.c
>
> unsigned int rotate6 (unsigned int a) {
> return ( a >> 6 ) | ( a << ( 32 - 6 ) );
> }
That's a fixed distance rotate. My question is will it work if the
distance is a variable. The other direction should work fine, agreed.
So, does ror-[12].c work with -mrori and no -mror? The predicates say
this insn pattern is just fine in that case, but the constraints will
disagree.
Segher
