On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:46:39AM +0000, Joel Hutton wrote:
> > + if (ot_plus == unknown_optab
> > + || ot_minus == unknown_optab
> > + || optab_handler (ot_minus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) ==
> > CODE_FOR_nothing
> > + || optab_handler (ot_plus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) ==
> > + CODE_FOR_nothing)
> > return false;
> >
> > Won't optab_handler just return CODE_FOR_nothing for unknown_optab?
>
> I was taking the check used in directly_supported_p
>
> return (optab != unknown_optab$
> && optab_handler (optab, TYPE_MODE (type)) != CODE_FOR_nothing);$
>
> > Anyway, I think best would be to write it as:
> > if (!target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, PLUS_EXPR, optab_default)
> > || !target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, MINUS_EXPR, optab_default))
> > return false;
> Looks good to me.
>
> Patch attached.
>
> Tests running on gcc-11 on aarch64.
>
> Ok for 11 once tests come back?
Yes, thanks.
Jakub
