On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:48:42AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I think we should add to
> > the canonicalisation rules so that fixed regs sort after other regs.
> > That requires a lot of testing.
>
> What if you have two hard regs as above? Which of reg 5 and reg 76
> sorts first? If they are
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:44:31PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Let's wait for Alan's patch that makes combine not reorder things
> unnecessarily, that should take care of it all as far as I see.
Patch here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02055.html
It doesn't do anything fancy
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 07:39:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:06:04PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ti_math1.c scan-assembler-times adde 1
>
> It doesn't trigger on big-endian; what is different?
Register dependencies. One of the argumen
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 11:59 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 11:44 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:34:14AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Actually, I believe that the way CA is modeled at the moment is dangerous.
> >> It's not a 64-bit value, but a
On 05/21/2015 11:44 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:34:14AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, I believe that the way CA is modeled at the moment is dangerous.
>> It's not a 64-bit value, but a 1-bit value.
>
> It's a fixed register and it is only ever set to 0
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:34:14AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 05:39 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> > Trying 18, 9 -> 24:
> >> > Failed to match this instruction:
> >> > (set (reg:DI 4 4 [+8 ])
> >> > (plus:DI (plus:DI (reg:DI 5 5 [ val+8 ])
> >> > (reg:DI 76
On 05/21/2015 05:39 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > Trying 18, 9 -> 24:
>> > Failed to match this instruction:
>> > (set (reg:DI 4 4 [+8 ])
>> > (plus:DI (plus:DI (reg:DI 5 5 [ val+8 ])
>> > (reg:DI 76 ca))
>> > (reg:DI 169 [+8 ])))
> For some reason it has the CA reg not
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:06:04PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ti_math1.c scan-assembler-times adde 1
> is seen on powerpc64le-linux since somewhere between revision 218587
> and 218616. See
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg01287.html and
> https://gcc.gn
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ti_math1.c scan-assembler-times adde 1
is seen on powerpc64le-linux since somewhere between revision 218587
and 218616. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg01287.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-12/msg01325.html
A regression hunt fing
