Re: Fwd: constant hoisting out of loops

2010-03-20 Thread Jim Wilson
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 03:40 +0800, fanqifei wrote: > foor_expand_move is changed and it works now. > However, I still don't understand why there was no such error if below > condition was used and foor_expand_move was not changed. > Both below condition and "(register_operand(operands[0], SImode) |

Re: Fwd: constant hoisting out of loops

2010-03-20 Thread fanqifei
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Jim Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 14:29 +0800, fanqifei wrote: >> I changed the condition in "*mov_insn_mode" to below: >>       (register_operand(operands[0], SImode) || >> register_operand(operands[1],SImode)) > > I think you need the same change in foor_

Re: Fwd: constant hoisting out of loops

2010-03-20 Thread Jim Wilson
On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 14:29 +0800, fanqifei wrote: > I changed the condition in "*mov_insn_mode" to below: > (register_operand(operands[0], SImode) || > register_operand(operands[1],SImode)) I think you need the same change in foor_expand_move. I.e., if neither the source or dest is a regis

Re: About behavior of -save-temps=obj option on GCC 4.5

2010-03-20 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Tadashi Koike wrote: > Hi all, >    (* I am weak in English, so pleas forgive my English mistake.) > >   Please teach me about a behavior of -save-temps=obj option > on gcc 4.5. A behavior I found is whether bug or specification ? > > [ summary ] >     compiling is

About behavior of -save-temps=obj option on GCC 4.5

2010-03-20 Thread Tadashi Koike
Hi all, (* I am weak in English, so pleas forgive my English mistake.)   Please teach me about a behavior of -save-temps=obj option on gcc 4.5. A behavior I found is whether bug or specification ? [ summary ]   compiling is failed when more than two source file are  specified with both -