Re: Revision 144098 (d.d. Wed Feb 11 08:56:41 2009 UTC (4 weeks ago)) is not a regression bug fix.

[Toon Moene <toon at moene dot org>]

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).

Kind regards,

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org (*NEW*) - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html