On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> 2013-05-23 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
>>
>> * config/alpha/alpha.md (unspec): Add UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE.
>> * config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_emit_xfloating_compare): Construct
>> REG_EQUAL note as UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE unspec.
>>
>> Patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on alphaev68-linux-gnu.
>>
>> OK for mainline and release branches?
>>
>> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57379
>
> Ok.
Actually, backport uncovered the problem with different compares,
which now shared the same REG_EQUAL note. Attached patch fixes this
oversight.
2013-06-10 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_emit_xfloating_compare): Also use
cmp_code to construct REG_EQUAL note.
Tested on alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu and committed to mainline SVN.
Uros.
Index: alpha.c
===================================================================
--- alpha.c (revision 199788)
+++ alpha.c (working copy)
@@ -3068,7 +3068,8 @@ alpha_emit_xfloating_compare (enum rtx_code *pcode
out = gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
/* What's actually returned is -1,0,1, not a proper boolean value. */
- note = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (DImode, gen_rtvec (2, op0, op1), UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE);
+ note = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (cmp_code, VOIDmode, op0, op1);
+ note = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (DImode, gen_rtvec (1, note), UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE);
alpha_emit_xfloating_libcall (func, out, operands, 2, note);
return out;
