https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Bug 64713 depends on bug 64993, which changed state.
Bug 64993 Summary: Missed ccmp optimization with simple code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64993
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux |aarch64*-*-linux*
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is failing this check:
/* Make sure that the value that is to be substituted for the register
does not use any registers whose values alter in between. However,
If the insns are adjacent, a us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a testcase which shows one of the issues with removing the optimization
inside expand:
int foo_c (int a, int b)
{
if (a > 9 && b < 34)
return 4;
else
return 26;
}
if the code was:
int foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64713
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have this too even before the recent patch.
