http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578



--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> 2013-04-29 
17:24:42 UTC ---

It does fix the issue I had in this test case. But theoretically can't

this pattern still generate an MMX reference in some cases? And I see

other instances of the same constraint in i386.md - is there a larger

issue here and how can we prevent this?



Thanks!

Teresa



On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:13 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com

<gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

>

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578

>

> --- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2013-04-29 
> 17:13:30 UTC ---

> Please try following patch, it fixes the testcase for me (note "!" for ?*y

> alternative):

>

> --cut here--

> Index: i386.md

> ===================================================================

> --- i386.md     (revision 198401)

> +++ i386.md     (working copy)

> @@ -3049,10 +3049,10 @@

>

>  (define_insn "*zero_extendsidi2"

>    [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand"

> -                       "=r,?r,?o,r   ,o,?*Ym,?*y,?*Yi,?*x")

> +                       "=r,?r,?o,r   ,o,?*Ym,?!*y,?*Yi,?*x")

>         (zero_extend:DI

>          (match_operand:SI 1 "x86_64_zext_operand"

> -                       "0 ,rm,r ,rmWz,0,r   ,m  ,r   ,m")))]

> +                       "0 ,rm,r ,rmWz,0,r   ,m   ,r   ,m")))]

>    ""

>  {

>    switch (get_attr_type (insn))

> --cut here--

>

> --

> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

> You are on the CC list for the bug.

Reply via email to