I wrote:
> Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
> > +; vec_set is supposed to *modify* an existing vector so operand 0 is
> > +; duplicated as input operand.
> > +(define_expand "vec_set<mode>"
> > + [(set (match_operand:V 0 "register_operand"
> > "")
> > + (unspec:V [(match_operand:<non_vec> 1 "general_operand"
> > "")
> > + (match_operand:SI 2 "shift_count_or_setmem_operand"
> > "")
>
> This is probably only cosmetic, but should we use nonmemory_operand here
> instead of shift_count_or_setmem_operand (just like everywhere else now)?
>
> > +(define_expand "vec_extract<mode>"
> > + [(set (match_operand:<non_vec> 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "")
> > + (unspec:<non_vec> [(match_operand:V 1 "register_operand" "")
> > + (match_operand:SI 2 "shift_count_or_setmem_operand"
> > "")]
>
> Likewise.
I just noticed that there are two more UNSPEC_VEC_SET expanders
in vx-builtins.md. I guess those should be likewise changed:
(define_expand "vec_insert<mode>"
[(set (match_operand:V_HW 0 "register_operand" "")
(unspec:V_HW [(match_operand:<non_vec> 2 "register_operand" "")
(match_operand:SI 3
"shift_count_or_setmem_operand" "")
(match_operand:V_HW 1 "register_operand" "")]
UNSPEC_VEC_SET))]
"TARGET_VX"
"")
(define_expand "vec_promote<mode>"
[(set (match_operand:V_HW 0 "register_operand" "")
(unspec:V_HW [(match_operand:<non_vec> 1 "register_operand" "")
(match_operand:SI 2
"shift_count_or_setmem_operand" "")
(match_dup 0)]
UNSPEC_VEC_SET))]
"TARGET_VX"
"")
Then the only remaining users of shift_count_or_setmem_operand are the
actual setmem patterns (so maybe the predicate can be renamed to
"setmem_operand") :-)
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
