Hi Richard, On 09/16/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Hi Christian, > > Christian Bruel <christian.br...@st.com> writes: >> @@ -6893,11 +6894,14 @@ label: >> ;; reloading MAC subregs otherwise. For that probably special patterns >> ;; would be required. >> (define_insn "*mov<mode>_reg_reg" >> - [(set (match_operand:QIHI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "=r") >> - (match_operand:QIHI 1 "register_operand" "r"))] >> + [(set (match_operand:QIHI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "=r,m,*z") >> + (match_operand:QIHI 1 "register_operand" "r,*z,m"))] > If the constraints allow "m", the predicates need to accept memories too. > (It'd be worth having an insn condition that rejects both operands > being memories though.) > > Thanks, > Richard Thanks for your comment,
I was wondering this too when doing the fix. I felt that a memory operand would be matched by the *movhi" patterns bellow. As I wanted to fix only the spilling case, so the original operand is a pseudo reg having matched the register predicate. Without the predicate memory not found, I wonder how I never hit a kind of "insn not found" error, well, 'll give a try to adding a memory condition in the predicate, but I fear that the movhi patterns will stop to match, Cheers Christian
