On 04/21/2014 01:19 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> + if (GET_CODE (trueop0) == VEC_SELECT
> + && GET_MODE (XEXP (trueop0, 0)) == mode)
> + {
> + rtx op0_subop1 = XEXP (trueop0, 1);
> + gcc_assert (GET_CODE (op0_subop1) == PARALLEL);
> + gcc_assert (XVECLEN (trueop1, 0) == GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode));
> +
> + /* Apply the outer ordering vector to the inner one. (The inner
> + ordering vector is expressly permitted to be of a different
> + length than the outer one.) If the result is { 0, 1, ..., n-1 }
> + then the two VEC_SELECTs cancel. */
> + for (int i = 0; i < XVECLEN (trueop1, 0); ++i)
> + {
> + rtx x = XVECEXP (trueop1, 0, i);
> + gcc_assert (CONST_INT_P (x));
> + rtx y = XVECEXP (op0_subop1, 0, INTVAL (x));
> + gcc_assert (CONST_INT_P (y));
In two places you're asserting that you've got a constant permutation. Surely
there should be a non-assertion check and graceful exit for either select to be
a variable permutation.
r~
