On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Toon Moene <t...@moene.org> wrote: > 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). >
Please open a bug report with as much info as possible. Thanks. -- H.J.
