Patches attached to the wrong email - this patch was actually:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 05:06:13PM +0000, Andrew Carlotti via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The documentation for the DONE and FAIL macros was incorrectly inserted
> between example code, and a remark attached to that example.
>
> Committed as obvious.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/md.texi: Move example code remark next to it's code block.
>
> ---
diff --git a/gcc/doc/md.texi b/gcc/doc/md.texi
index
cc28f868fc85b5148450548a54d69a39ecc4f03a..c1d3ae2060d800bbaa9751fcf841d7417af1e37d
100644
--- a/gcc/doc/md.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/md.texi
@@ -9321,6 +9321,11 @@ so here's a silly made-up example:
"")
@end smallexample
+@noindent
+If we had not added the @code{(match_dup 4)} in the middle of the input
+sequence, it might have been the case that the register we chose at the
+beginning of the sequence is killed by the first or second @code{set}.
+
There are two special macros defined for use in the preparation statements:
@code{DONE} and @code{FAIL}. Use them with a following semicolon,
as a statement.
@@ -9348,11 +9353,6 @@ If the preparation falls through (invokes neither
@code{DONE} nor
@code{FAIL}), then the @code{define_peephole2} uses the replacement
template.
-@noindent
-If we had not added the @code{(match_dup 4)} in the middle of the input
-sequence, it might have been the case that the register we chose at the
-beginning of the sequence is killed by the first or second @code{set}.
-
@end ifset
@ifset INTERNALS
@node Insn Attributes
