The canonical form has the NOT first. If the second operand needs the NOT, the operands need to be reversed when the new insn is created, in rs6000_split_logical, not in the pattern.
Thanks, David On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Pat Haugen <pthau...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 12/19/2014 01:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:54:22AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> >>> >On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:48:46PM -0600, Pat Haugen wrote: >>>> >>>> > > ;; 128-bit ANDC/ORC >>>> > >+;; In the case where rs6000_split_logical is called, the NOT'd >>>> > > operand >>>> > >+;; must be opnd1 in order for the split insns to be recognized. >>> >>> > >>> >So fix rs6000_split_logical? >> >> That is, the call to it -- if operand[2] has the NOT, it should be >> false, false, true instead of false, true, false. >> > Yes, that was my first attempt at fixing this problem, but ended up with an > unrecognized insn for the following. Which is why I switched my approach to > swapping operands in the patch. > > > builtin-arith-overflow-7.c:80:1: error: unrecognizable insn: > } > ^ > (insn 537 536 538 35 (set (reg:DI 10 10) > (and:DI (reg:DI 8 8) > (not:DI (reg:DI 30 30)))) builtin-arith-overflow-7.c:76 -1 > (nil)) >
