This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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: define_peephol2 insn

From: "M R Swami Reddy" <MR dot Swami dot Reddy at nsc dot com>
To: "Joern Rennecke" <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
Cc: "gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:24:10 +0530
Subject: Re: define_peephol2 insn
References: <20090303074808.48rhmiuxog004484-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>

To solve the above issue, can I use the "define_peephole2" insn pattern?
No.  At most you could abuse it to hide the issue some of the time.
You probably have one or more of your target macros / hooks wrong,
e.g. HARD_REGNO_NREGS.

Thank you very much for your reply. In my case, code generation is correct for all test cases without optimization option. Wrong code generated (as mentioned in previous mail) for rare case with optimization + PIC options (ie -O1 -fPIC) enabled only.

Thanks
Swami

References:
- Re: define_peephol2 insn
  - From: Joern Rennecke

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