Hi,
> Or perhaps this could be another manifestation of the "cse gets confused by
> reg_equal notes on subparts of dimode pseudos if no movdi pattern is defined
> in the backend" bug[*]? Pranav, is there a movdi pattern in your backend?
> There needs to be one, gcc does get it wrong if you rely
On 27 July 2007 18:24, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Pranav Bhandarkar" writes:
>
>> I am working on a private port and am seeing the following problem.
>> For a function returning a double the value is stored by the function
>> in memory. cse removes one of the two loads (to retrieve this returned
> Where does reg 178 come from? It does not appear in the other insns
> you listed.
I am sorry, my mistake. I meant to say that the dump was only a part
of the entire dump of the function. reg 178 is the result of a
previous call to __floatsidf and is defined by the following insn.
(insn 19 18 2
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working on a private port and am seeing the following problem.
> For a function returning a double the value is stored by the function
> in memory. cse removes one of the two loads (to retrieve this returned
> value) after the function is call
