On 6/12/2024 12:39 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi Edwin,
this LGTM but I just remembered I intended to turn the assert
into a more descriptive error.
The attached patch has been sitting on my local branch for a
while. Maybe we should rather fold yours into it?
That's fine with me! Having more desc
Hi Edwin,
this LGTM but I just remembered I intended to turn the assert
into a more descriptive error.
The attached patch has been sitting on my local branch for a
while. Maybe we should rather fold yours into it?
Regards
Robin
>From d164403ef577917f905c1690f2199fab330f05e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:0
When emitting insns, we have an early assertion to ensure the input
operand's mode and the expanded operand's mode are the same; however, it
does not perform this check if the pattern does not have an explicit
machine mode specifying the operand. In this scenario, it will always
assume that mode =
