From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5643858002
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:08:29 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6E5643858002
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
 by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A621FB;
 Wed, 13 Oct 2021 06:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.57.25.80] (unknown [10.57.25.80])
 by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7607C3F66F;
 Wed, 13 Oct 2021 06:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fc565bf7-f51c-efab-a459-2d76102ab655@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 14:08:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [arm] Fix MVE addressing modes for VLDR[BHW] and VSTR[BHW]
Content-Language: en-US
To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>,
 "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
References: <9a52d3ba-ca2d-03b9-c709-a50909057887@arm.com>
 <PAXPR08MB6926638F4F220606090BD25C93B79@PAXPR08MB6926.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <PAXPR08MB6926638F4F220606090BD25C93B79@PAXPR08MB6926.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:08:32 -0000


On 13/10/2021 13:37, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
>
> @@ -24276,7 +24271,7 @@ arm_print_operand (FILE *stream, rtx x, int code)
>   	else if (code == POST_MODIFY || code == PRE_MODIFY)
>   	  {
>   	    asm_fprintf (stream, "[%r", REGNO (XEXP (addr, 0)));
> -	    postinc_reg = XEXP ( XEXP (x, 1), 1);
> +	    postinc_reg = XEXP (XEXP (addr, 1), 1);
>   	    if (postinc_reg && CONST_INT_P (postinc_reg))
>   	      {
>   		if (code == POST_MODIFY)
>
> this looks like a bug fix that should be separately backported to the branches?
> Otherwise, the patch looks ok for trunk to me.
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
Normally I'd agree with you, but this is specific for the 'E' handling, 
which is MVE only and I am pretty sure the existing code would never 
accept POST/PRE Modify codes so this issue will never trigger before my 
patch.So I'm not sure it's useful to backport a bugfix for a bug that 
won't trigger, unless we also backport the entire patch, but I suspect 
we don't want to do that?