[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2022-01-05 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2021-10-08 Thread carll at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 Carl Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2021-09-29 Thread guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 HaoChen Gui changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2021-09-28 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- It's interesting that VSX reg costs is 4000, but the FPR and Altivec regs are cost zero like GPRs. I wonder why that is. These look like d-form memory accesses and we don't have d-form Altivec memory ops,

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2021-09-28 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- So we have the following during IRA: (insn 7 2 8 2 (set (reg:SI 120 [ barD.3297 ]) (mem/c:SI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [ (symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

2021-09-28 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org Ever