Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> In general, yes. But looking at it we should probably only call
> copy_to_reg if TARGET is not itself a pseudo-register.
>
> And I think I would put the new code before the "TARGET and VALREG
> cannot be equal" comment.
>
> That patch is OK if it works and passes testi
Kaz Kojima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like this?
>
> @@ -2861,6 +2861,12 @@ expand_call (tree exp, rtx target, int i
>
>If they refer to the same register, this move will be a no-op,
>except when function inlining is being done. */
> + /* We have to copy a retu
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't see what this has to do with pure functions.
>
> It seems to me that instead you want to put something here:
>
> else if (target
> && GET_MODE (target) == TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (exp))
> && GET_MODE (target) == GET_MODE (valreg))
>
>
> Kaz Kojima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > --- ORIG/trunk/gcc/calls.c 2005-10-29 06:52:11.0 +0900
> > +++ LOCAL/trunk/gcc/calls.c 2005-11-03 09:15:47.0 +0900
> > @@ -2774,6 +2774,17 @@ expand_call (tree exp, rtx target, int i
> > emit_insn (insns);
> > valreg =
Kaz Kojima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- ORIG/trunk/gcc/calls.c2005-10-29 06:52:11.0 +0900
> +++ LOCAL/trunk/gcc/calls.c 2005-11-03 09:15:47.0 +0900
> @@ -2774,6 +2774,17 @@ expand_call (tree exp, rtx target, int i
> emit_insn (insns);
> valreg = temp;
>
Joern RENNECKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[.expand after the patch]
>>(set (reg/f:SI 160) (const:SI (unspec [(symbol_ref:SI ("baz"))] 7)))
>>(set (reg:SI 161) (plus:SI (reg:SI 12 r12) (reg/f:SI 160)))
>>(set (reg/f:SI 159) (mem/u/c:SI (reg:SI 161)))
>>(set (reg:SI 0 r0) (call (mem:SI (symbol_ref:
Kaz Kojima wrote:
[.expand after the patch]
(set (reg/f:SI 160) (const:SI (unspec [(symbol_ref:SI ("baz"))] 7)))
(set (reg:SI 161) (plus:SI (reg:SI 12 r12) (reg/f:SI 160)))
(set (reg/f:SI 159) (mem/u/c:SI (reg:SI 161)))
(set (reg:SI 0 r0) (call (mem:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("bar")
(set (mem/c/i:S
Hi,
I've tried to see what is gonig on for PR target/24445 which is
a 4.1 regression of SH.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24445
Comparing rtl dumps for the reduced testcase in the audit trail #4
of that PR with and without Jan's patch in #10, there is no return
value copy in the rt
