On 26 April 2023 23:10:01 CEST, Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >On Apr 26 2023, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > >> @@ -290,10 +290,10 @@ >> [(set (match_operand:GPR 0 "register_operand" "=&r") >> (match_operand:GPR 1 "memory_operand" "+A")) >> (set (match_dup 1) >> - (unspec_volatile:GPR [(match_operand:GPR 2 "reg_or_0_operand" "rJ") >> - (match_operand:GPR 3 "reg_or_0_operand" "rJ") >> - (match_operand:SI 4 "const_int_operand") ;; mod_s >> - (match_operand:SI 5 "const_int_operand")] ;; mod_f >> + (unspec_volatile:GPR[(match_operand:GPR 2 "reg_or_0_operand" "rJ") >> + (match_operand:GPR 3 "reg_or_0_operand" "rJ") >> + (match_operand:SI 4 "const_int_operand") ;; mod_s >> + (match_operand:SI 5 "const_int_operand")] ;; mod_f > >That appears to be a bug in the checker. This isn't a C array >expression, but an argument in lispy vector notation, so it should be >separated by a space.
Yeah, the checker fails on machine descriptions currently, i should have mentioned that, sorry!
