On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:10AM -0500, Pat Haugen wrote: > On 05/23/2014 01:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >@@ -27385,6 +27371,11 @@ insn_must_be_first_in_group (rtx insn) > > case TYPE_MFJMPR: > > case TYPE_MTJMPR: > > return true; > >+ case TYPE_MUL: > >+ if (get_attr_dot (insn) == DOT_YES) > >+ return true; > >+ else > >+ break; > > case TYPE_LOAD: > > if (get_attr_sign_extend (insn) == SIGN_EXTEND_YES > > || get_attr_update (insn) == UPDATE_YES) > >@@ -27415,8 +27406,6 @@ insn_must_be_first_in_group (rtx insn) > > case TYPE_COMPARE: > > case TYPE_DELAYED_COMPARE: > > case TYPE_VAR_DELAYED_COMPARE: > >- case TYPE_IMUL_COMPARE: > >- case TYPE_LMUL_COMPARE: > > case TYPE_SYNC: > > case TYPE_ISYNC: > > case TYPE_LOAD_L: > This looks like you added it to the POWER7 case and removed from the > POWER8 case. The MUL_COMPARE types should have been listed for the > POWER7 case leg also, so the addition there is fine, but the new code > should also be duplicated in the POWER8 case leg.
Looks like a mismerge/rebase. Sorry. That's what happens with huge repetitive functions :-( The "shift" patch adds it back for the POWER8 case. Somehow I missed that when reviewing. I didn't intend to change anything with these patches; will leave the POWER7 case though since you like it. Thanks, Segher
