On 7 July 2014 11:29, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 3 July 2014 10:34, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 03-07-14 10:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 09:02, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>
> In the first example you gave, looking at the
On 3 July 2014 10:34, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 03-07-14 10:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 09:02, Tom de Vries 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 regis
On 03-07-14 10:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
On 2 July 2014 09:02, Tom de Vries 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 discussi
On 2 July 2014 09:02, Tom de Vries 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 m
On 02/07/14 08:52, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 01-07-14 21:47, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
>>> what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
> >
>> I don't think we can
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_
On 01-07-14 21:47, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
>
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My recommend
