Hi,
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> It is very common that input is one of the above cases, during x86_64-linux
> and i686-linux bootstraps+regtests I got:
> 13201x CONST_INT, 1959x MEM, 114x SUBREG, 110x SYMBOL_REF,
> 2x PLUS (the new testcase only)
> and most of those were actually
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 08:38:00PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Ah, ok, but
> > asm volatile ("" : "=m,m" (b), "=r,r" (b) : "1,p" (b));
> > ICEs the same way, and that should be valid even according to the above
> > description.
>
> Yes that's valid and shouldn't ICE.
I will change the testca
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Blaeh. Note that "1p" is actually invalid:
> >
> > --
> > `0', `1', `2', ... `9'
> > An operand that matches the specified operand number is allowed.
> > If a digit is used together with letters within the same
> > alt
Hi!
The inline-asm here has "1p" constraint and we end up with
(plus (frame) (const_int ...))
as input; even when the matching output is a REG, I'm not really
sure emit_move_insn can handle arbitrary expressions (consider e.g.
"1X" constraint), and calling reg_overlap_mentioned_p on something othe
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 08:09:00PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > The inline-asm here has "1p" constraint and we end up with
> > (plus (frame) (const_int ...))
>
> Blaeh. Note that "1p" is actually invalid:
>
> --
> `0', `1', `2
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The inline-asm here has "1p" constraint and we end up with
> (plus (frame) (const_int ...))
Blaeh. Note that "1p" is actually invalid:
--
`0', `1', `2', ... `9'
An operand that matches the specified operand number is allowed.
