On 3 July 2014 10:34, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 03-07-14 10:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: >> >> 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, > > I found this by inspection: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-07/msg00007.html > . > > Thanks, > - Tom >
Hi, This patch causes gcc.target/aarch64/vmlsq_laneq.c to FAIL on aarch64_be-none-elf. Christophe.
