On 11/12/22 20:47, Max Filippov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> 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 predicate:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/config/m68k/predicates.md;h=6ca261fb92a2b7ecd53a0356d06410e2c0d70965;hp=417989f6d6c408fa82af9f9649a204b9a754d1dc;hb=75df395f15f2;hpb=676fd528c9990a4f1046b51d40059893c3a71490
and that made me think that the intention was to not recognize
the unspecs in that predicate.
Thanks for clarifying. ISTM that operand predicate is quite poorly named.
OK for the trunk.
jeff
