On 02/10/2012 08:57 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > However, there's a failure to combine looking like: > (parallel [ > (set (reg:QI 1 AL) > (ior:QI (mem/c/i:QI (reg/f:QI 4 AP) [2 y+0 S1 A16]) > (reg:QI 30 [ x+1 ]))) > (clobber (reg:CC 13 CC)) > ])
Why do you think that combine should create this? Really, I'd have expected swap_commutative_operands_p to have put things around the other way. That's the way that almost all cisc machines represent their memory operands. ... Although I don't see any specific test for this in the code for commutative_operand_precedence. That's probably at least a think-o. r~
