This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/16800] PowerPC - Unnecessary rldicl
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 2 Aug 2004 01:02:25 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/16800] PowerPC - Unnecessary rldicl
- References: <20040728170038.16800.steinmtz@us.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-02 01:02 -------
Confirmed, I think this is a target problem:
(insn:TI 36 20 37 0 (set (reg:SI 0 0 [134])
(gt:SI (reg:CCFP 75 7 [135])
(const_int 0 [0x0]))) 422 {*rs6000.md:11384} (insn_list 34 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CCFP 75 7 [135])
(nil)))
(insn:TI 37 36 23 0 (set (reg:DI 0 0 [131])
(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 0 0 [134]))) 12 {*rs6000.md:374} (insn_list 36 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/i:DI (reg/f:DI 10 10 [128]) [4 l2+0 S8 A64])
(nil)))
(insn:TI 23 37 38 0 (set (reg:DI 9 9 [122])
(eq:DI (reg:CCFP 74 6 [126])
(const_int 0 [0x0]))) 423 {*rs6000.md:11416} (insn_list:REG_DEP_ANTI 32
(insn_list:REG_DEP_OUTPUT 29 (insn_list 20
(nil))))
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CCFP 74 6 [126])
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/i:DI (reg/f:DI 11 11 [119]) [4 l1+0 S8 A64])
(nil))))
But I could be wrong.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-08-02 01:02:22
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16800