On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:10:21PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:59:44PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > In doing other work, I noticed that there was an insn: > > > > vsx_extract_v4sf_<mode>_load > > > > Which did not have an iterator. I removed the useless <mode>. > > This patch does that, you mean. > > > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md > > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md > > @@ -3576,7 +3576,7 @@ (define_insn_and_split "vsx_extract_v4sf" > > [(set_attr "length" "8") > > (set_attr "type" "fp")]) > > > > -(define_insn_and_split "*vsx_extract_v4sf_<mode>_load" > > +(define_insn_and_split "*vsx_extract_v4sf_load" > > [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "=f,v,v,?r") > > (vec_select:SF > > (match_operand:V4SF 1 "memory_operand" "m,Z,m,m") > > Does this fix any ICEs? Or do you have some example that makes better > machine code after this change? Or would a better change perhaps be to > just remove this pattern completely, if it doesn't do anything useful? > > I.e., please include a new testcase.
There is absolutely no code change. It is purely a cleanup patch. In doing other patches, I just noticed that pattern had a _<mode> in it when it didn't have an iterator. I just cleaned up the code removing _<mode>. I probably should have changed it to vsx_extract_v4sf_sf_load. -- Michael Meissner, IBM PO Box 98, Ayer, Massachusetts, USA, 01432 email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com
