This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug target/49468] SH Target: inefficient integer abs code


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468

--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-28 08:41:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 26768
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26768
Patch to add DImode abs

The attached patch adds DImode abs and did not introduce new failures when
tested against rev 184589.
I'm a bit confused, as this is exactly the same code as I used before to add
DImode abs, and before it was failing in some cases.  Either there was another
bug that got fixed in the middle-end optimizers, or this is just coincidence. 
I've seen that other expanders use force_reg to make sure that operands will be
in regs ... would that be the safer way of doing it?


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