Steve Ellcey <sell...@marvell.com> writes: > On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 17:34 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > + (match_operand:TX 2 "register_operand" "w")) >> > + (set (mem:TX (plus:P (match_dup 0) >> > + (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" "n"))) >> > + (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])] >> >> Think this last part should be: >> >> (set (mem:TX (plus:P (plus:P (match_dup 0) >> (match_dup 4)) >> (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" >> "n"))) >> (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])] > > I think you are right about this. What I have for > loadwb_pair<TX:mode>_<P:mode> matches what is there for > loadwb_pair<GPF:mode>_<P:mode>. If this one is wrong, then I assume > the others are wrong too? This won't make a practical difference since > we call these with gen_loadwb_pair*_* calls and not via pattern > recognition, but still they should be right. Should I change them > all? I did not change this as part of this patch.
I think we should fix the new pattern, but I agree fixing the others should be a separate patch. Patch LGTM with that change. Thanks, Richard
