On 14/6/16 5:55 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 05:46:45PM +0100, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> On 2014-06-11, 1:17 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Looking at this too, as an LRA exercise. I don't really think the
>>> pattern is wrong, rather LRA should just avoid creating the copy
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 05:46:45PM +0100, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-06-11, 1:17 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> > Looking at this too, as an LRA exercise. I don't really think the
> > pattern is wrong, rather LRA should just avoid creating the copy in this
> > case; it's a result of operand con
On 2014-06-11, 1:17 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/6/11 下午 06:32, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A recent change somewhere exposed a latent bug between LRA and the definition
>> of the movsi_compare0 pattern.
>>
>> This pattern ties the source and destination register of a set togethe
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:17:47PM +0100, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2014/6/11 下午 06:32, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > A recent change somewhere exposed a latent bug between LRA and the
> > definition
> > of the movsi_compare0 pattern.
> >
> > This pattern ties the source and dest
On 2014/6/11 下午 06:32, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A recent change somewhere exposed a latent bug between LRA and the definition
> of the movsi_compare0 pattern.
>
> This pattern ties the source and destination register of a set together
> a (match_dup) and register constraints:
>
>
