Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org> writes: > Thanks for noticing it Richard, I made a refactoring mistake and addr > was supposed to be used instead of x. In fact on AArch64 it occurs > that we don't have stripped rtxes at this step and we have some of the > form below, this if why I added the strip. > > (insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI > (subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0)
Yeah, but that's because strip_address_mutations doesn't consider SIGN_EXTRACT to be a "mutation" as things stand. My point was that I think it should, at least for the special extract-from-lsb case. It then shouldn't be necessary to handle SIGN_EXTRACT in the other address-analysis routines. (That might be what you meant, sorry, just thought I'd say in case.) Thanks, Richard
