https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #20 from Jim Wilson <wilson at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't see the distinction here. Ia64 has instructions that operate on 32-bit
values too, like cmp4.
On sparc, given this testcase
int
sub (int i, int j, int k)
{
return i + j + k;
}
the compiler generates
sub:
add %o0, %o1, %o0
add %o0, %o2, %o0
jmp %o7+8
sra %o0, 0, %o0
Note that the add instruction operates on the entire 64-bit register, and after
the first add, we no longer have a valid 32-bit value, because there might have
been an overflow. This is why we need the sra at the end to sign-extend the
return value, because we know that the upper 32-bits are don't care bits.
If you take a paradoxical subreg of a SImode reg after an add instruction, you
can't make any assumptions about the upper 32-bits of the value in the
register. Exactly the same as ia64.
I do see that the fact that sparc has 32-bit shift instructions defined means
the testcase that fails on ia64 will not fail on sparc. But if we rely on that
for the WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS definition, then it gets even messier than it
already is.
If nonzero_bits1 isn't changed, then we may need to remove the
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS definition in the ia64 port. Unfortunately, I don't
have access to ia64 hardware, so I can't easily check to see what will happen
if this is done.
