Hi Iain
Iain Sandoe wrote:
>Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "Qian, Jianhua" writes:
>>> Hi Richard
>>>
>>> I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
>>> and others are not. For example
>>> (define_insn "insv_imm"
>>> [(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "registe
Richard Sandiford wrote:
"Qian, Jianhua" writes:
Hi Richard
I found that some instructions are using '#' before immediate value，
and others are not. For example
(define_insn "insv_imm"
[(set (zero_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "+r")
(const_int
I've a slight preference for having the “#”.
Thanks,
Richard
>
> Regards
> Qian
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
> To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix
lsl %1"
[(set_attr "type" "mov_imm")]
)
Are there any standards for this?
Regards
Qian
-Original Message-
From: Richard Sandiford
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:09 PM
To: Qian, Jianhua/钱 建华
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix testcase gcc.ta
Qian Jianhua writes:
> There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\
There are three failures in gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c.
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 0, 8
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler bfi\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, 16, 5
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/insv_1.c scan-assembler movk\tx[0-9]+, 0x1d6b, lsl 32
This
