> On Jun 11, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2018 09:02 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> By "multiple memory operands" do you mean both source and dest in
>> memory?
> Yes and no :-) I suspect no real thought was given to what happens when
> there's more than one auto-
On 06/04/2018 09:02 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 06/04/2018 08:06 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/04/2018 07:31 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> The internals manual in its des
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2018 08:06 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/04/2018 07:31 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
The internals manual in its description of the "matching constraint" says
that i
On 06/04/2018 08:06 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 06/04/2018 07:31 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> The internals manual in its description of the "matching constraint" says
>>> that it works for cases where the in and out operands are somewhat
>>
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2018 07:31 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> The internals manual in its description of the "matching constraint" says
>> that it works for cases where the in and out operands are somewhat
>> different, such as *p++ vs. *p. Obviously that i
On 06/04/2018 07:31 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> The internals manual in its description of the "matching constraint" says
> that it works for cases where the in and out operands are somewhat different,
> such as *p++ vs. *p. Obviously that is meant to cover post_inc side effects.
>
> The curious t
