Re: [PATCH][M68K] Fix extendsidi pattern to handle ColdFire

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
> > Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> > > Operand3 was introduced for the sake of making output code cleaner; 
> > > specifically:
> > >
> > >     operands[3] = adjust_address (operands[0], SImode,
> > >                  which_alternative == 0 ? 4 : 0);
> > >
> > > While this construct has been working without declaring the operand 
> > > in the pattern for years, it is cleaner, in my opinion, to 
> > > explicitly declare every operand in use by the pattern.
> >
> > I don't think that's true at all.  Not for derived operands like this.
>
> I am outnumbered here :(  Is the patch without (clobber 
> (match_scratch:SI 3 "=X,X,X,X")) OK to check in?
Please submit it for a quick review.

Jeff