Hi! These two peephole2s misbehave if it sees e.g. regN = mem regN = regN + regN mem = regN CC = regN != 0 because transforming it into mem = mem + regN ; CC = mem != 0 is wrong, I forgot to verify the second operand of the plusminuslogic_operator doesn't overlap the first operand.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk/4.8 and perhaps also 4.7 (where it is just latent)? 2013-06-09 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR target/57568 * config/i386/i386.md (TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE peepholes): Ensure that operands[2] doesn't overlap with operands[0]. * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57568.c: New test. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.md.jj 2013-06-03 19:15:34.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md 2013-06-08 21:59:43.416954936 +0200 @@ -16591,6 +16591,7 @@ (define_peephole2 "(TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE || optimize_insn_for_size_p ()) && peep2_reg_dead_p (4, operands[0]) && !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[1]) + && !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[2]) && (<MODE>mode != QImode || immediate_operand (operands[2], QImode) || q_regs_operand (operands[2], QImode)) @@ -16655,6 +16656,7 @@ (define_peephole2 || immediate_operand (operands[2], SImode) || q_regs_operand (operands[2], SImode)) && !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[1]) + && !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[2]) && ix86_match_ccmode (peep2_next_insn (3), (GET_CODE (operands[3]) == PLUS || GET_CODE (operands[3]) == MINUS) --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57568.c.jj 2013-06-08 22:03:38.861005658 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57568.c 2013-06-08 22:03:19.000000000 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +/* PR target/57568 */ + +extern void abort (void); +int a[6][9] = { }, b = 1, *c = &a[3][5]; + +int +main () +{ + if (b && (*c = *c + *c)) + abort (); + return 0; +} Jakub