This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Combine related fail of gcc.target/powerpc/ti_math1.c


On 05/21/2015 05:39 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > Trying 18, 9 -> 24:
>> > Failed to match this instruction:
>> > (set (reg:DI 4 4 [+8 ])
>> >     (plus:DI (plus:DI (reg:DI 5 5 [ val+8 ])
>> >             (reg:DI 76 ca))
>> >         (reg:DI 169 [+8 ])))
> For some reason it has the CA reg not last.  I think we should add to
> the canonicalisation rules so that fixed regs sort after other regs.
> That requires a lot of testing.

Actually, I believe that the way CA is modeled at the moment is dangerous.
It's not a 64-bit value, but a 1-bit value.

If we rearrange the expanded rtl to be (zero_extend:DI (reg:BI CA)), then
normal canonicalization rules will apply and it'll always appear first in the
chain of PLUS.


r~


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]