https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- > Am 06.03.2024 um 17:12 schrieb gjl at gcc dot gnu.org > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114252 > > --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) >> So bswap on a value is just register shuffling, right? > > The point is that there is no need for bswap in the first place, just have a > look at the code that v13 generates. It's 4 QI loads and that's it, no > shuffling required at all. > > But v14 dropped that, and the bswapsi (presumably due to previous flawed tree > optmizations) is introduced by some tree pass. > > There's nothing the backend can do about it. So would you explain why you > think it's a "target" issue? > > Maybe the PR title I used is confusing and does not hit the point? Why does the target say it has bswapsi then? In which case is that profitable? > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
