http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02424.html
Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/27/2011 09:12 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> PR target/49313 >> * config/avr/libgcc.S (__ffshi2): Don't skip 2-word instruction. >> (__ctzsi2): Result for 0 may be undefined. >> (__ctzhi2): Result for 0 may be undefined. >> (__popcounthi2): Don't clobber r30. Use __popcounthi2_tail. >> (__popcountsi2): Ditto. And don't clobber r26. >> (__popcountdi2): Ditto. And don't clobber r27. >> * config/avr/avr.md (UNSPEC_COPYSIGN): New c_enum. >> (parityhi2): New expand. >> (paritysi2): New expand. >> (popcounthi2): New expand. >> (popcountsi2): New expand. >> (clzhi2): New expand. >> (clzsi2): New expand. >> (ctzhi2): New expand. >> (ctzsi2): New expand. >> (ffshi2): New expand. >> (ffssi2): New expand. >> (copysignsf2): New insn. >> (bswapsi2): New expand. >> (*parityhi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*parityqihi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*paritysihi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*popcounthi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*popcountsi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*popcountqi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*popcountqihi2.libgcc): New insn-and-split. >> (*clzhi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*clzsihi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*ctzhi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*ctzsihi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*ffshi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*ffssihi2.libgcc): New insn. >> (*bswapsi2.libgcc): New insn. > > Looks good. > > > r~ http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176920 Committed with the following changes imposed by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=176862 i.e. don't generate zero_extends with hard register and replace (define_expand ... ... (set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "") (zero_extend:SI (reg:HI 24)))] "" "") with (define_expand ... ... (set (match_dup 2) (reg:HI 24)) (set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "") (zero_extend:SI (match_dup 2)))] "" { operands[2] = gen_reg_rtx (HImode); }) Replacing explicit hard registers in expanders/splits with insns that have corresponding hard register constraints lead to extraordinary bad code, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02412.html and the following discussion. Unfortunately, the relevant post didn't show up in the mail archives yet (since 24 hours now) so I cannot link it, but obviously Richard received it as he answered to it. Passed without regressions. Johann
