https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19d81fda48f30c4fc11c8912749351acd9159c17
commit r12-6433-g19d81fda48f30c4fc11c8912749351acd9159c17
Author: Xionghu Luo
Date: Sun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #11 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
+(define_insn_and_split "*anddi3_insn_dot"
+ [(set (pc)
+(if_then_else (eq (and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "%r,r")
+ (match_operand:DI 2 "const_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #9)
> > It does matter, if what you are want to see is if it is smaller than zero or
> > greater than zero. CCmode includes those things. There is a CCEQmode for
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #9 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #6)
> > > > foo:
> > > > .LFB0:
> > > > .cfi_startproc
> > > > rldicr. 3,3,29,1
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #6)
> > > foo:
> > > .LFB0:
> > > .cfi_startproc
> > > rldicr. 3,3,29,1
> > > beq 0,.L2
> >
> > This is fine, but only because it tests the EQ b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #7 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
1| Dump of assembler code for function foo:
2|0x15e0 <+0>: rldicr. r3,r3,29,1
3+> 0x15e4 <+4>: beq 0x15f0
4|0x15e8 <+8>: blr
5|0x000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #6 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> (In reply to luoxhu from comment #4)
> > Simply adjust the sequence of dot instruction could produce expected code,
> > is this correct?
>
> No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #4)
> Simply adjust the sequence of dot instruction could produce expected code,
> is this correct?
No it isn't. Sorry.
> foo:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #4 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Simply adjust the sequence of dot instruction could produce expected code, is
this correct?
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
rldicr. 3,3,29,1
beq 0,.L2
#APP
# 10 "pr102239.c"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> > Confirmed.
> >
> > So the relevant insn
> >
> > (parallel [(set (reg:CC 123)
> > (compare:CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-09
Ever confirmed|0
13 matches
Mail list logo
