This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Resubmit/ping: peephole2 vs cond-exec vs df
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> No, those parts of the buffer that weren't part of the match remain
>>> unaffected, we keep both the insns and their life information. ?We only
>>> rebuild life for the new insns produced by the match.
>>>
>>> Here's a new version with a few more comments and a few remnants of old
>>> code removed. ?I've also removed some dead code found in genrecog.c (got
>>> sidetracked today into debugging the current peephole2 code again...);
>>> this was left in after your r34208 patch.
>>
>> I think this causes a bootstrap failure on x86_64-linux-gnu:
>> /home/apinski/src/gcc-fsf/local//gcc/gcc/coverage.c:151:1: error:
>> unrecognizable insn:
>> (insn 25 7 26 2
>> /home/apinski/src/gcc-fsf/local//gcc/gcc/coverage.c:150 (set (reg:DI 1
>> dx)
>> ? ? ? ?(mem/s:SI (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 5 di [orig:64 of ] [64])
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(const_int 4 [0x4])) [15 entry_2->ctr+0 S4 A32])) -1 (nil))
>> /home/apinski/src/gcc-fsf/local//gcc/gcc/coverage.c:151:1: internal
>> compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2127
>
> + ?[(match_scratch:SI 5 "r")
>
> I think the :SI part is incorrect, we need a DI mode on x86_64 rather
> than a SImode.
>
Like this?
--
H.J.
---
Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.md
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.md (revision 161586)
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.md (working copy)
@@ -17558,7 +17558,7 @@
;; leal (%edx,%eax,4), %eax
(define_peephole2
- [(match_scratch:SI 5 "r")
+ [(match_scratch:P 5 "r")
(parallel [(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "")
(ashift (match_operand 1 "register_operand" "")
(match_operand 2 "const_int_operand" "")))