On 04/10/2018 21:39, Richard Sandiford wrote:
OK with that change if it works, thanks.
Thanks, here's what I've committed.
Andrew
Don't double-count early-clobber matches.
Given a pattern with a number of operands:
(match_operand 0 "" "=&v")
(match_operand 1 "" " v0")
(match_operand 2 "" " v
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 17/09/18 10:18, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> The idea looks good to me FWIW, but you can't use curr_static_id for
>> the state, since that's a static description of the .md pattern rather
>> than data about this particular instance.
>
> I clearly misunderstood what that w
On 17/09/18 10:18, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The idea looks good to me FWIW, but you can't use curr_static_id for
the state, since that's a static description of the .md pattern rather
than data about this particular instance.
I clearly misunderstood what that was for.
This patch does the same
writes:
> Given a pattern with a number of operands:
>
> (match_operand 0 "" "=&v")
> (match_operand 1 "" " v0")
> (match_operand 2 "" " v0")
> (match_operand 3 "" " v0")
>
> GCC will currently increment "reject" once, for operand 0, and then decrement
> it once for each of the other operands, end
Given a pattern with a number of operands:
(match_operand 0 "" "=&v")
(match_operand 1 "" " v0")
(match_operand 2 "" " v0")
(match_operand 3 "" " v0")
GCC will currently increment "reject" once, for operand 0, and then decrement
it once for each of the other operands, ending with reject == -2 an
