[Bug target/41505] GCC choosing poor code sequence for certain stores (x86)

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #2 from law at redhat dot com  2009-09-29 17:12 -------
I don't understand your comment Richard.  Isn't it just something like this?
(define_peephole2
  [(match_scratch:SI 2 "r")
   (set (match_operand:SI 0 "memory_operand" "")
        (match_operand:SI 1 "const_0_operand" ""))]
  ""
  [(set (match_dup 2) (match_dup 1))
   (set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 2))]
  "")


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41505