This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR target/68991: Add vector_memory_operand and "Bm" constraint
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:11:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR target/68991: Add vector_memory_operand and "Bm" constraint
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20151230205333 dot GA1877 at gmail dot com> <CAFULd4bAa2+Jn10-wnLzTVkUWVh1KOgpCA8LM1DMUDAyNb2baA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrYmTPPFE3mre7kcWEGoHJx32ogQ60J1gPryo2d593nKg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4Y5HmdwT_N9n_ZDcj6W54tuT37Z-D+k_VYM2qentfVDyw at mail dot gmail dot com> <9193C1A5-1430-49CF-9F47-CB673218BA30 at gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoKtKo_xV0Nn7ufNowXjfkS4XsLnifHPVTCUCCobFM8ew at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOreR+8cxrTvw-f-WtMUVq6F_XhDJ6yYFwxjLd5orWiExw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4YKifWmi0hMuTZALd1xzEKQAZ_G=q4vRJBQU_iEvYm5kA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqJY-uOd5sQBqphv9NakPTE5oog0FwoQf3-oyRPeZzOHg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpOhuBk46DHFkdJymGcD89yDH+GGeongQSkK4txN_e-Uw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:25:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> LRA is fine. I should use
>
> (define_memory_constraint "Bm"
> "@internal Vector memory operand."
> (match_operand 0 "vector_memory_operand"))
>
> instead of
>
> (define_constraint "Bm"
> "@internal Vector memory operand."
> (match_operand 0 "vector_memory_operand"))
I don't think so. At least the documentation says that
define_memory_constraint is for MEM constraints where if they are not
satisfied they can be made to satisfy by forcing the address into a
register. But that is not the case here, if a MEM is misaligned, no
equivalent changes to the XEXP (mem, 0) will make it aligned.
Jakub