<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:31 AM Christo Crause <<a href="mailto:christo.crause@gmail.com">christo.crause@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:51 PM Pierre Muller <<a href="mailto:pierre@freepascal.org" target="_blank">pierre@freepascal.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hopefully someone else can explain that discrepancy,<br>
I have no idea why this exists,<br>
it might be simply related to the CPU instructions<br>
with most parameters that are considered for optimization!<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Thanks for the backgroup Pierre. I've changed max_operands = 2 for AVR (and updated AVRInstrConstraint in raavr.pas), recompiled the crossavr compiler and RTL for avr5 and preliminary inspection show correct code being generated. Perhaps these two constants (MaxOps and ax_operands) should be merged if there isn't a difference in meaning and use case between them?<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I noticed that Florian removed MaxOps over the weekend. Quick action, thank you.</div></div></div>