H.J. Lu wrote:
If you can provide a testcase, I can take a look. If it isn't easy to find a testcase, please disable the second pattern:(define_peephole2 [(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "") (match_operand 1 "register_operand" "")) (set (match_dup 0) (match_operator 3 "commutative_operator" [(match_dup 0) (match_operand 2 "memory_operand" "")]))] "operands[0] != operands[1] && ((MMX_REG_P (operands[0]) && MMX_REG_P (operands[1])) || (SSE_REG_P (operands[0]) && SSE_REG_P (operands[1])))" [(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 2)) (set (match_dup 0) (match_op_dup 3 [(match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)]))] "") to see if it makes a difference.
Thanks. Test case is hard, but this is easy to try. Expect an answer from me tomorrow (e.g. 12 UTC).
Kind regards, -- Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org (*NEW*) - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html
