Re: A question about RTL output

2005-10-23 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > dp-bit.c: In function `__pack_d': > dp-bit.c:435: error: unrecognizable insn: > (insn 33 32 34 0 dp-bit.c:167 (set (reg:SI 159) > (ltu:SI (reg:SI 158 [ .class ]) > (const_int 2 [0x2]))) -1 (insn_list 32 (nil)) > (nil)) > dp-bit.c:43

Re: A question about RTL output

2005-10-23 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks. And there is another question. I've been told that 'scond' > operations are not obligatory defined. If they are not defined then > they will use 'bcond' like. But while I omit 'scond', gcc will fail > error that such operation rtl doesn't define. S

Re: A question about RTL output

2005-10-23 Thread Jim Wilson
Eric Fisher wrote: This is a strange problem. Why an operantion that should be a 'xorsi3' format, yet it comes out with a 'scond' format. Probably because it was optimized. If you want a better answer, you have to give us more info about what happened, such as a C testcase, and RTL dumps. B