On 2 July 2014 09:02, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote: >> >> In the first example you gave, looking at the pattern (no match_dup, >> setting the >> full register), it seems that it may have wanted "=&" instead of "+&". > > > [ move discussion from gcc ml to gcc-patches ml ] > > Marcus, > > The +& constraint on operand 0 of vec_unpack_trunc_<mode> seems wrong, since > the template does not use the operand as input. > > This patch fixes that. > > OK for trunk if aarch64 build & regtest succeeds ?
Your patch looks fine, operand 0 isn't used for input. OK assuming no regression. Did you find this by inspection or is this the cause of some bug? /Marcus
