Hi! On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 05:20:12PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > @@ -3249,9 +3249,10 @@ (define_insn "vsx_vslo_<mode>" > ;; Variable V2DI/V2DF extract > (define_insn_and_split "vsx_extract_<mode>_var" > [(set (match_operand:<VS_scalar> 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=v,wa,r") > - (unspec:<VS_scalar> [(match_operand:VSX_D 1 "input_operand" "v,m,m") > - (match_operand:DI 2 "gpc_reg_operand" "r,r,r")] > - UNSPEC_VSX_EXTRACT)) > + (unspec:<VS_scalar> > + [(match_operand:VSX_D 1 "reg_or_non_pcrel_operand" "v,ep,ep") > + (match_operand:DI 2 "gpc_reg_operand" "r,r,r")] > + UNSPEC_VSX_EXTRACT)) > (clobber (match_scratch:DI 3 "=r,&b,&b")) > (clobber (match_scratch:V2DI 4 "=&v,X,X"))] > "VECTOR_MEM_VSX_P (<MODE>mode) && TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE_64BIT"
After this patch, what happens if you have this instruction generated with some pcrel memory? This pattern will no longer match. Or can that not happen? Many places call gen_vsx_extract_*. I wouldn't use "ep" for *non*-pcrel. The new constraints/predicates don't need to do everything in a C block. Looks good otherwise. Segher
