https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
But reorg should handle that fine. It's got code to track dependencies and not
move something in an unsafe manner. Of course all that code is incredibly
hairy as it predates a control flow graph and real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> reorg splits insns because doing so gives more opportunities to fill delay
> slot, particularly when the asm-output step would generate multiple
> instructions for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
> Created attachment 59330 [details]
> a trial patch
>
> This patch disables the above splitter after machine reorg pass so to hide
> it from dbr_schedule. I thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 59330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59330&action=edit
a trial patch
This patch disables the above splitter after machine reorg pass so to hide it
from dbr_schedul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117111
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
dbr_schedule is trying to fill the delay slot of
(jump_insn 17 16 42 (set (pc)
(if_then_else (eq (reg:SI 147 t)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(label_ref:SI 94)
(pc)))
