On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:28:19AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I see. We could also allow this for 2->2 combinations (w/ the same
> restrictions we do for other 2->2 combinations, but that probably falls
> out automatically).
In this case we actually want a 2->1 combination, where the result isn't
recognized, but the splitter splits the 1 insn into another 1.
Could be limited just to that, but yes, even 2->1 combination where
the 1 is split into 2 insns and costs say it is ok (and other restrictions
satisfied) should be ok too.
Jakub
