This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch committed SH] Fix PR target/41813
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [patch committed SH] Fix PR target/41813
- References: <20091026.081225.35811700.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp>
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> --- ORIG/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.md 2009-08-13 09:46:10.000000000 +0900
> +++ trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.md 2009-10-23 17:07:19.000000000 +0900
> @@ -6825,7 +6825,7 @@ label:
> (define_insn "stuff_delay_slot"
> [(set (pc)
> (unspec [(match_operand:SI 0 "const_int_operand" "") (pc)] UNSPEC_BBR))
> - (set (reg:SI T_REG) (match_operand:SI 1 "const_int_operand" ""))]
> + (match_operand:SI 1 "const_int_operand" "")]
Just curious, why the naked const_int, why not wrap it in "use"
or as another operand inside the unspec vector (the latter being
more canon)? The naked const_int seems like it could confuse
something, not that there are many passes after dbr.
brgds, H-P