> On 17 Oct 2024, at 22:32, Victor Do Nascimento <victor.donascime...@arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I definitely agree about the spuriousness of the V2DI mode check.
> While I can't approve, I can confirm it looks good.
Thanks for looking at it Victor.
The patch is ok.
Kyrill
>
> Thanks,
> Victor.
>
> On 10/17/24 16:10, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> The split condition in aarch64_simd_mov uses
>> aarch64_simd_special_constant_p. While
>> doing the split, it checks the mode before calling
>> aarch64_maybe_generate_simd_constant.
>> This risky since it may result in unexpectedly calling
>> aarch64_split_simd_move instead
>> of aarch64_maybe_generate_simd_constant. Since the mode is already checked,
>> remove the
>> spurious explicit mode check.
>> Passes bootstrap & regress, OK for commit?
>> ---
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
>> b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
>> index
>> 18795a08b61da874a9e811822ed82e7eb9350bb4..5ac80103502112664528d37e3b8e24edc16eb932
>> 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
>> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
>> @@ -208,7 +208,6 @@ (define_insn_and_split "*aarch64_simd_mov<VQMOV:mode>"
>> else
>> {
>> if (FP_REGNUM_P (REGNO (operands[0]))
>> - && <MODE>mode == V2DImode
>> && aarch64_maybe_generate_simd_constant (operands[0], operands[1],
>> <MODE>mode))
>> ;
