On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Dominique Dhumieres
wrote:
>> PS. IIRC some previous discussions around such darwin peculiarities
>> the f? decoration may be too simplistic to cover all the powerpc
>> flavors (A. Pinski may know better).
>
> I have found the links for that: r168960 (pr41146). A.
> PS. IIRC some previous discussions around such darwin peculiarities
> the f? decoration may be too simplistic to cover all the powerpc
> flavors (A. Pinski may know better).
I have found the links for that: r168960 (pr41146). A. Pinski asked to
add %?. I don't know which ppc platform uses it and
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:40:09PM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> commit 61ceeb130c2c2c342f19e716397ffddd212a0b32
> Author: Aldy Hernandez
> Date: Thu Jan 10 11:58:37 2013 -0600
>
> PR target/55565
> * gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-mov-1.c: Update scan-assembler-not
> regex.
Ok with
On 01/10/13 12:58, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Hi,
AFAIU the regexps, they are not doing what they are supposed to do
on powerpc-apple-darwin9: the assembly reads
fmr f1,f0
i.e., fmr \[0-9\]+ or fmr 1 are never found.
If I use "fmr f?\[0-9\]+,f?\[0-9\]+", then the test fails,
in line w
Hi,
AFAIU the regexps, they are not doing what they are supposed to do
on powerpc-apple-darwin9: the assembly reads
fmr f1,f0
i.e., fmr \[0-9\]+ or fmr 1 are never found.
If I use "fmr f?\[0-9\]+,f?\[0-9\]+", then the test fails,
in line with the other powerpc.
If I use "lfd \(f?\[0-9\]
I have a long diatribe on the PR as to why the current generated code is
correct, and more optimal than when the test used to "pass". Bottom
line is that we now perform less branches and less loads/stores, at the
expense of one register to register move.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
