On 27.05.2022 10:57, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:05 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's pretty clear that the operand numbers in the MEM_P() checks are
>> off by one, perhaps due to a copy-and-paste oversight (unlike in most
>> other places here we're dealing with two outputs).
>> ---
>> What I don't understand is why operand 2 is "nonimmediate_operand", not
>> "register_operand" (which afaict would eliminate the need for these
>> MEM_P() checks). This would then also extend to e.g. the subsequent
>> umul<mode><dwi>3_1 and mul<mode><dwi>3_1 (and apparently quite a few
>> more).
>
> Because they are commutative (due to % operand modifier) and reload
> can put memory operand into each operand.
>
> Patch is OK with the appropriate ChangeLog entry.
Thanks, and yes, I did notice I failed to add a ChangeLog entry right
after sending (being a result of such no longer be required in
binutils, which I work more frequently with), sorry. This is what I
did add already:
gcc/
2022-05-XX Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
* config/i386/i386.md (bmi2_umul<mode><dwi>3_1): Correct MEM_P()
arguments.
Jan
