This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs
- From: "dave.anglin at bell dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 23:14:10 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-62631-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #27 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 5:24 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
>
> --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> The generated code on PA looks optimal to me:
>>
>> zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
>> b .L2
>> ldi 99,%r19
>> .L6:
>> zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
>> .L2:
>> addl %r26,%r28,%r28
>> ldo 1(%r25),%r25
>> comb,>>= %r19,%r25,.L6
>> stw %r0,0(%r28)
>> bv,n %r0(%r2)
>
> For most other architectures the BIV (%r25) is eliminated to the GIV (%r28) so
> you only have one additive operation in the loop. This happens for 64-bit PA:
>
> .L5:
> ldo 4(%r26),%r26
> cmpb,*>>,n %r28,%r26,.L5
> stw %r0,0(%r26)
> bve,n (%r2)
>
> Why couldn't such a code be generated for 32-bit PA too?
There is no reason that I can see.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.anglin@bell.net