On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:17:10AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> ISTM if we're presented with something like that (and I don't think
> there's anything in RA which explicitly disallows such code), then
> what we have to evaluate is whether or not the transformation
> preserves the semantics.
>
> So, incoming would look like this (assuming a 32 bit target):
>
>
> r1:SI = mem:SI
> r2:DI = sext:DI (r1:SI)
> [ Use r2/r3 ]
> r1:DI = zext:DI (r1:SI)
>
> And that would be transformed into:
>
> r2:DI = sext:DI (mem:SI)
> r1:DI = r2:DI
> [ Use r2/r3 ]
> r1:DI = zext:DI (r1:SI)
>
> Where r2 will have the wrong value in the use statements. ISTM we
> can check for an overlap between the destination of the memory load
> and the destination of the first extension. Right?
>
> Is that the case you're worrying about?
Yes. So my suggestion actually was not correct for that:
&& !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (dest, XEXP (src, 0))
because the first extension above has r1:SI and r2:DI which don't
overlap, only r1:DI and r2:DI overlap. So it probably should be checked
in combine_reaching_defs instead where you have already both the registers
in the right modes available and can call reg_overlap_mentioned_p on them
directly. One argument would be SET_DEST (def_insn) and one SET_DEST
(cand->insn), right?
Jakub
