On 7/6/23 00:48, Christoph Müllner wrote:
Thanks for this!
Of course I was "lucky" and ran into the issue that the patterns did not match,
because of unexpected MULT insns where ASHIFTs were expected.
But after reading enough of combiner.cc I understood that this is on purpose
(for addresses) and I have to adjust my INSNs accordingly.
Yea, it's a wart that the same operation has two different canonical
forms depending on the context where it shows up :( It's definitely a wart.
I've changed the patches for XTheadMemIdx and XTheadFMemIdx and will
send out a new series.
Sounds good.
Jeff
