This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3/mainilne] Fix kernel misscopmiilation for hammer
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:04:19 -0800
- Subject: Re: [3.3/mainilne] Fix kernel misscopmiilation for hammer
- References: <20030225223852.GB30993@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20030225224532.GC30993@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20030225224749.GA13285@redhat.com> <20030225225021.GD30993@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20030225225133.GC13285@redhat.com> <20030226110629.GA14922@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20030226171444.GA22942@redhat.com> <20030226193740.GK27482@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20030304013821.GS12472@redhat.com> <20030304102436.GA8262@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> This is bit longish one. Compile it with -O1.
Thanks. Now I have another problem. I can't see how the
movabsdi_2_rex64 pattern can ever be matched. I see that
it *is* in the given test case, but as far as I can see
this can only be a bug in the generated insn-recog.c.
Tell me what is the difference between these two insns:
(insn 80 24 93 2 0x2a95fb0720 (set (reg:DI 72 [ now.jiffies ])
(mem/v/f:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("jiffies")) [0 jiffies+0 S8 A64])) 87
{*movabsdi_2_rex64} (nil)
(nil))
(insn 8 26 11 0 0x2a95594660 (set (reg:DI 60 [ asdf ])
(mem/v/f:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("asdf")) [0 asdf+0 S8 A64])) 85
{*movdi_1_rex64_nointerunit} (nil)
(nil))
r~