On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:48 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:20 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
> >
> > The simple test case below demonstrates an interesting register
> > allocation challenge facing x86_64, imposed by ABI requirements
> > on int128.
> >
> > __int128 foo(
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:32 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:20 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
> >
> > The simple test case below demonstrates an interesting register
> > allocation challenge facing x86_64, imposed by ABI requirements
> > on int128.
> >
> > __int128 foo(__int128 x, __in
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:20 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> The simple test case below demonstrates an interesting register
> allocation challenge facing x86_64, imposed by ABI requirements
> on int128.
>
> __int128 foo(__int128 x, __int128 y)
> {
> return x+y;
> }
>
> For which GCC currently generate
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:21 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> The simple test case below demonstrates an interesting register
> allocation challenge facing x86_64, imposed by ABI requirements
> on int128.
>
> __int128 foo(__int128 x, __int128 y)
> {
> return x+y;
> }
>
> For which GCC currently generate
The simple test case below demonstrates an interesting register
allocation challenge facing x86_64, imposed by ABI requirements
on int128.
__int128 foo(__int128 x, __int128 y)
{
return x+y;
}
For which GCC currently generates the unusual sequence:
movq%rsi, %rax
movq%rd
