Alex Coplan <alex.cop...@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Remi,
>
> On 12/06/2025 17:02, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Remi Machet <rmac...@nvidia.com> writes:
>> > + "TARGET_SIMD"
>> > + "#"
>> > + "&& true"
>> > + [(const_int 0)]
>> > +{
>> > + rtx tmp;
>> > + if (can_create_pseudo_p ())
>> > + tmp = gen_reg_rtx (<MODE>mode);
>> > + else
>> > + tmp = gen_rtx_REG (<MODE>mode, REGNO (operands[0]));
>> > + emit_insn (gen_move_insn (tmp,
>> > + aarch64_simd_gen_const_vector_dup (<MODE>mode, -1)));
>>
>> This can be simplified to:
>>
>> emit_insn (gen_move_insn (tmp, CONSTM1_RTX (<MODE>mode)));
>
> Is there a reason to prefer emit_insn (gen_move_insn (x,y)) over just
> emit_move_insn (x,y)? I tried the latter locally and it seemed to work.
Gah, thanks for catching that. I was concentrating so much on the
constant that I didn't notice the emit_insn (gen_move_insn (...)) thing.
Richard
