On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 7:33 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. ISTM that operand predicate is quite poorly named.
>
> OK for the trunk.
Thanks. Applied to master.
-- Max
On 11/12/22 20:47, Max Filippov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jeff Law wrote:
ISTM that we'd need to strip the unspec and process its argument
instead.
I tried that first, the result was more ICEs because that pattern
wasn't recognized at later stages. Then I read the change to the
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> ISTM that we'd need to strip the unspec and process its argument
> instead.
I tried that first, the result was more ICEs because that pattern
wasn't recognized at later stages. Then I read the change to the
comment over the symbolic_operand predi
On 11/11/22 12:43, Max Filippov wrote:
gcc/
PR target/107645
* config/m68k/predicates.md (symbolic_operand): Return false
when UNSPEC is under the CONST node.
Isn't the underlying object still symbolic though, thus returning false
seems wrong.
insn 342 341 343 35 (s
gcc/
PR target/107645
* config/m68k/predicates.md (symbolic_operand): Return false
when UNSPEC is under the CONST node.
---
Regtested with --enable-checking=all for target=m68k-linux-uclibc, no
new regressions compared to the compiler built without checking.
Ok for master?
