Paul Edwards wrote: > > As an alternative to the operand predicate, you might also add > > an extra check to the insn condition. For example, something > > along the following lines should work: > > > > (define_insn "" > > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=d") > > (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "0") > > (match_operand:SI 2 "const_int_operand" "K")))] > > "CONST_OK_FOR_LETTER_P (INTVAL (operands[2]), 'K')" > > My eyes lit up when I saw that! However, it produced a compiler > error when I tried it. But undeterred, I tried this: > > (define_insn "" > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=d") > (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "0") > (match_operand:SI 2 "immediate_operand" "K")))] > "(GET_CODE (operands[2]) == CONST_INT > && REG_P (operands[0]) > && CONST_OK_FOR_LETTER_P (INTVAL (operands[2]), 'K'))"
Huh. Instead of adding an explicit CONST_INT check, my approach above used a const_int_operand predicate (instead of immediate_operand). That should have had the exact same effect ... I'm not sure why the REG_P check on the other operand would be necessary at this point. > And it worked (verified by self-compile)! And I relaxed the > constraint on the "M" instruction as well. Those old warnings > are apparently irrelevant now. Thank you sir. :-) OK, that's good to know. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
