On 12/31/2025 10:41 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Does it make sense to handle pointer_plus as well? It would seem
like it. It's marginally harder to test and I wouldn't lose too much
sleep if we didn't have coverage.
This is mostly the reason why we didn't add pointer_plus: I didn't find a
suitable test case to see before/after. All tests I come up with showed
that pointer_plus was already being taken care of, but then again I'm not
sure if I was testing it correctly to be honest. This all happened during
the v1 discussions.
If we're ok with not having coverage for this specific case I'm ok with
adding pointer_plus in the pattern. I would even make a note in the
testcase mentioning that we do not have a test for it.
Let's just leave it out. We can always follow-up with POINTER_PLUS
if/when we have a suitable testcase.
So I think we just need to adjust those highpart testcases so they work
on the 16bit targets and we're good to go.
jeff
