> Do you mean that you add OImode patterns? I don't think that should > be necessary. Like I say, I think it'd be reasonable for emit_move_insn > to split into TImode pieces.
I guess I misunderstood you. My OImode pattern falls back to TImode of course. But you suggested to have the generic code split/subreg it already, then using the now-required TImode move pattern. My understanding is that we have the TImode issue (where we cannot split a 128b vector into anything smaller) for OImode as well if regmode_natural_size == 256b. This is the case if we compile with a "base" vector size of 256b (because at zvl256b we enable all VLS modes up to 256b). Don't we have the same problem then at the 256b boundary? (and at every next-larger one once we define an appropriate integer mode). -- Regards Robin
