On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:02:05 PDT (-0700), li...@eswincomputing.com wrote:
When generating the gen_and<mode>3 function based on the and<mode>3
template, it produces the expression emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (operand0,
gen_rtx_AND (<mode>, operand1, operand2)));, which is identical to the
portion I removed in this patch. Therefore, the redundant portion can be
deleted.
Signed-off-by: Die Li <li...@eswincomputing.com>
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv.md: Remove redundant portion in and<mode>3.
---
gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
index 7988026d129..c4f8eb9488e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
@@ -1491,11 +1491,6 @@
DONE;
}
}
- else
- {
- emit_move_insn (operands[0], gen_rtx_AND (<MODE>mode, operands[1],
operands[2]));
- DONE;
- }
})
(define_insn "*and<mode>3"
Unless I'm missing something, this will just result in no emitted
instructions for this "and" pattern? That seems wrong, it would at
least have to put the source into the dest -- but
"arith_operand_or_mode_mask" can contain values that don't just result
in an extension (like arbitrary register values, for example), so I
think we need the "and" operation.
Does this pass the regression suite?
Either way, if this branch of the conditional can't trigger we should
tighten the constraint (or at a bare minimum add a comment as to why).
