This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1
Richard Henderson wrote:
To be safe, should "&& 1" be present in split condition?
Yes.
This patch was commited to mainline (bootstrapped on i686-pc-linux-gnu,
regtested c,c++:
2004-11-18 Uros Bizjak <uros@kss-loka.si>
* configure/i386/i386.md (*fix_trunch_1): Add "&& 1" to
insn split constraint.
(define_peephole2): Remove unneeded "&& 1" from peephole2
constraints.
Uros.
Index: config/i386/i386.md
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md,v
retrieving revision 1.562
diff -u -p -r1.562 i386.md
--- config/i386/i386.md 18 Oct 2004 13:01:31 -0000 1.562
+++ config/i386/i386.md 18 Nov 2004 06:48:49 -0000
@@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "push_operand" "")
(match_operand:DI 1 "immediate_operand" ""))]
"TARGET_64BIT && !symbolic_operand (operands[1], DImode)
- && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode) && 1"
+ && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode)"
[(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1))
(set (match_dup 2) (match_dup 3))]
"split_di (operands + 1, 1, operands + 2, operands + 3);
@@ -2136,7 +2136,7 @@
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "memory_operand" "")
(match_operand:DI 1 "immediate_operand" ""))]
"TARGET_64BIT && !symbolic_operand (operands[1], DImode)
- && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode) && 1"
+ && !x86_64_immediate_operand (operands[1], DImode)"
[(set (match_dup 2) (match_dup 3))
(set (match_dup 4) (match_dup 5))]
"split_di (operands, 2, operands + 2, operands + 4);")
@@ -4405,7 +4405,7 @@
&& !reload_completed && !reload_in_progress
&& !SSE_FLOAT_MODE_P (GET_MODE (operands[1]))"
"#"
- ""
+ "&& 1"
[(const_int 0)]
{
ix86_optimize_mode_switching = 1;