This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:46:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1429220775 dot 20720 dot 4 dot camel at gnopaine> <1429273663 dot 20720 dot 6 dot camel at gnopaine> <1429277282 dot 20720 dot 8 dot camel at gnopaine> <20150417144938 dot GR1725 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <1429282924 dot 20720 dot 13 dot camel at gnopaine> <1429288364 dot 20720 dot 17 dot camel at gnopaine> <20150417163959 dot GS1725 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:39:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The " && special_op != SH_NONE" test from the second if can go then,
> because it is never true. And I'd really think that you shouldn't change
> just the fmt[i] == 'E' handling, but also the fmt[i] == 'e' || fmt[i] == 'u'
> handling a few lines earlier (both the added
> "if (special_op == SH_NONE) continue;" there and
> removal of " && special_op != SH_NONE".
In particular, this is what I had in mind.
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
PR target/65787
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rtx_is_swappable_p): Remove previous
fix; ensure that a subsequent SH_NONE operand does not overwrite
an existing *special value.
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c.jj 2015-04-17 19:09:59.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c 2015-04-17 19:28:43.264784372 +0200
@@ -34204,17 +34204,6 @@ rtx_is_swappable_p (rtx op, unsigned int
else
return 0;
- case PARALLEL:
- /* A vec_extract operation may be wrapped in a PARALLEL with a
- clobber, so account for that possibility. */
- if (XVECLEN (op, 0) != 2)
- return 0;
-
- if (GET_CODE (XVECEXP (op, 0, 1)) != CLOBBER)
- return 0;
-
- return rtx_is_swappable_p (XVECEXP (op, 0, 0), special);
-
case UNSPEC:
{
/* Various operations are unsafe for this optimization, at least
@@ -34296,10 +34285,11 @@ rtx_is_swappable_p (rtx op, unsigned int
{
unsigned int special_op = SH_NONE;
ok &= rtx_is_swappable_p (XEXP (op, i), &special_op);
+ if (special_op == SH_NONE)
+ continue;
/* Ensure we never have two kinds of special handling
for the same insn. */
- if (*special != SH_NONE && special_op != SH_NONE
- && *special != special_op)
+ if (*special != SH_NONE && *special != special_op)
return 0;
*special = special_op;
}
@@ -34308,10 +34298,11 @@ rtx_is_swappable_p (rtx op, unsigned int
{
unsigned int special_op = SH_NONE;
ok &= rtx_is_swappable_p (XVECEXP (op, i, j), &special_op);
+ if (special_op == SH_NONE)
+ continue;
/* Ensure we never have two kinds of special handling
for the same insn. */
- if (*special != SH_NONE && special_op != SH_NONE
- && *special != special_op)
+ if (*special != SH_NONE && *special != special_op)
return 0;
*special = special_op;
}
Jakub
- References:
- [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787
- Re: [PATCH, 5.1, rs6000] Fix PR65787