[Committed] PR rtl-optimization/29797: ifcvt.c vs BITS_BIG_ENDIAN

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 10:40:00 GMT 2006


On 11/13/06, Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com> wrote:
>
> The following patch is a very slightly modified version Michael Matz's
> fix for the wrong-code regression.  My patch to implement PR9814 didn't
> take into account the influence of BITS_BIG_ENDIAN on the semantics of
> zero_extract.  Indeed, this can be confirmed by noticing that the added
> gcc.dg/pr9814-1.c testcase isn't being optimized on powerpc and other
> BITS_BIG_ENDIAN targets.  Adding the appropriate logic to correct for
> BITS_BIG_ENDIAN corrects, this and addresses the miscompilation bug.
>
> int test1(int x)
> {
>   if (x & 2)
>     x |= 2;
>   return x;
> }
>
> On powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu previously generated:
>
> test1:  andi. 0,3,2
>         beqlr- 0
>         ori 3,3,2
>         blr
>
> and with the correction below we now generate:
>
> test1:  blr
>
>
> This patch has been tested against mainline on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
> with a full "make bootstrap", all default languages, and regression tested
> with a top-level "make -k check" with no new failures.  Andrew Pinski has
> also tested a similar patch on powerpc-darwin without problems.  However,
> Richard Guenther has reported problems on ppc64 on the 4.1 branch.  I
> suspect this might be a bad interaction with an independent latent bug on
> older branches, or a 64-bit issue perhaps addressed by the variant of
> this patch below.  To avoid problems, I'll fully test against the 4.1 and
> 4.2 branches on both ppc and ppc64 before backporting.

It turns out this was a mistake on my side where I used GET_MODE_BITSIZE
before extracting the mode...

So, sorry for the confusion.
Richard.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list