This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revision 144098 (d.d. Wed Feb 11 08:56:41 2009 UTC (4 weeks ago)) is not a regression bug fix.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Toon Moene <toon@moene.org> wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> If you can provide a testcase, I can take a look. If it isn't easy to find
>> a testcase, please disable the second pattern:
>>
>> (define_peephole2
>> ?[(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "")
>> ? ? ? ?(match_operand 1 "register_operand" ""))
>> ? (set (match_dup 0)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (match_operator 3 "commutative_operator"
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [(match_dup 0)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(match_operand 2 "memory_operand" "")]))]
>> ?"operands[0] != operands[1]
>> ? && ((MMX_REG_P (operands[0]) && MMX_REG_P (operands[1]))
>> ? ? ? || (SSE_REG_P (operands[0]) && SSE_REG_P (operands[1])))"
>> ?[(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 2))
>> ? (set (match_dup 0)
>> ? ? ? ?(match_op_dup 3 [(match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)]))]
>> ?"")
>>
>> to see if it makes a difference.
>
> Thanks. ?Test case is hard, but this is easy to try. ?Expect an answer from
> me tomorrow (e.g. 12 UTC).
>
Please open a bug report with as much info as possible.
Thanks.
--
H.J.