This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/49133] [4.6/4.7 Regression] modification of aliased __m128d miscompiles
- From: "kretz at kde dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:32:38 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/49133] [4.6/4.7 Regression] modification of aliased __m128d miscompiles
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-49133-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49133
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz <kretz at kde dot org> 2011-05-24 10:16:41 UTC ---
I applied the patch to the latest 4.6 snapshot. I confirm that it fixes the
bug. Also, there are no regressions in my testsuite.
Just for confirmation, the patched sse.md looks like this for me now (starting
from line 4952):
(define_insn "sse2_loadhpd"
[(set (match_operand:V2DF 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=x,x,x,o,o,o")
(vec_concat:V2DF
(vec_select:DF
(match_operand:V2DF 1 "nonimmediate_operand" " 0,0,x,0,0,0")
(parallel [(const_int 0)]))
(match_operand:DF 2 "nonimmediate_operand" " m,x,0,x,*f,r")))]
"TARGET_SSE2 && !(MEM_P (operands[1]) && MEM_P (operands[2]))"
"@
movhpd\t{%2, %0|%0, %2}
unpcklpd\t{%2, %0|%0, %2}
shufpd\t{$0, %1, %0|%0, %1, 0}
#
Question, why not use unpcklpd instead of shufpd $0? On older CPUs unpcklpd
should be slightly faster than shufpd.