> Here is the new patch that I am currently testing with your change and
> incorporating Eric's comment. I included both test cases but renamed
> yours and put it into gcc.dg/torture. Does the code in combine.c to
> address Eric's comment look OK to you?
>
> Steve Ellcey
> steve.ell...@imgtec.co
Andrew,
Here is the new patch that I am currently testing with your change and
incorporating Eric's comment. I included both test cases but renamed
yours and put it into gcc.dg/torture. Does the code in combine.c to
address Eric's comment look OK to you?
Steve Ellcey
steve.ell...@imgtec.com
2
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:44:25AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> (jump_insn 16 15 17 2 (set (pc)
> (if_then_else (ne (subreg:SI (reg:DI 207) 4)
> (subreg:SI (reg:DI 196 [ *last_3(D)+-4 ]) 4))
> (label_ref:DI 35)
> (pc))) x.c:21 472 {*branch_equal
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:32 AM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>
>>
>> A bug was reported against the GCC MIPS64 compiler that involves a bad
>> combine
>> and this patch fixes the bug.
>>
>> When using '-fexpensive-optimizations -march=mips64r2 -mabi=64' GCC
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:44:25AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> (jump_insn 16 15 17 2 (set (pc)
>> (if_then_else (ne (subreg:SI (reg:DI 207) 4)
>> (subreg:SI (reg:DI 196 [ *last_3(D)+-4 ]) 4))
>>
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
>
> A bug was reported against the GCC MIPS64 compiler that involves a bad combine
> and this patch fixes the bug.
>
> When using '-fexpensive-optimizations -march=mips64r2 -mabi=64' GCC is
> combining these instructions:
>
> (insn 13 12
