Expanding without DONE or FAIL will leave the pattern as well, so this
patch is fine IMO, so this patch LGTM, but anyway I will test this and
commit if passed :)
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:34 AM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> 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).
