[Bug rtl-optimization/52838] [x32] missed optimization for pointer return value

2012-04-05 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-05 16:16:41 UTC --- > Can we somehow keep the knowledge that it is a zero-extended 32-bit value? > It is useful for encoding purpose. After combine has run, this seems hard. So the easiest approach migh

[Bug rtl-optimization/52838] [x32] missed optimization for pointer return value

2012-04-05 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug rtl-optimization/52838] [x32] missed optimization for pointer return value

2012-04-04 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/52838] [x32] missed optimization for pointer return value

2012-04-04 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-04 21:41:02 UTC --- > This looks like a combine problem: > > (insn 8 6 9 2 (set (reg/f:SI 59 [ D.1705 ]) > (subreg/s/u:SI (reg:DI 60) 0)) pr52838.c:6 64 {*movsi_internal} > (expr_list:REG_DE

[Bug rtl-optimization/52838] [x32] missed optimization for pointer return value

2012-04-04 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|