On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recommendation would be for this to be considered a hard error.
Uh? The doc explicitly says "An input operand can be tied to an
earlyclobber
operand" and goes on to explain why that is useful. It avoids using the
same
register for other input when they are identical.
Hi Marc,
That part of the doc refers to the mulsi3 insn for ARM as example:
...
;; Use `&' and then `0' to prevent the operands 0 and 1 being the same
(define_insn "*arm_mulsi3"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "=&r,&r")
(mult:SI (match_operand:SI 2 "s_register_operand" "r,r")
(match_operand:SI 1 "s_register_operand" "%0,r")))]
"TARGET_32BIT && !arm_arch6"
"mul%?\\t%0, %2, %1"
[(set_attr "type" "mul")
(set_attr "predicable" "yes")]
)
...
Note that there's no combination of & and + here.
I think it could have used (match_dup 0) instead of operand 1, if there
had been only the first alternative. And then the constraint would have
been +&.
AFAIU, the 'tie' established here is from input operand 1 to an earlyclobber
output operand 0 using the '0' matching constraint.
Having said that, I don't understand the comment, AFAIU it should be: 'Use
'0' to make sure operands 0 and 1 are the same, and use '&' to make sure
operands 0 and 2 are not the same.
Well, yeah, the comment doesn't seem completely in sync with the code.
In the first example you gave, looking at the pattern (no match_dup,
setting the full register), it seems that it may have wanted "=&" instead
of "+&".
(by the way, in the same aarch64-simd.md file, I noticed some
define_expand with constraints, that looks strange)
--
Marc Glisse
