On 2/5/18 10:48 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> I did also try calling expand_divmod() here which did generate correct >> code, the problem was that it wasn't as clean/optimized as the change >> to gen_divdi3. > > Why not fix it at the site of the call to gen_divdi3 instead of the > divdi3 pattern?
Well as I said above, I did try that and we got worse code. That said, I unconditionally called expand_divmod() instead of calling gen_divdi3() when we can (TARGET_POWERPC64). Let me retry with that change and see what kind of code gen we get. Peter
