https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stli at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jan 27 14:42:23 2017
New Revision: 244979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244979=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78559
* combine.c (try_combine):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Sorry, long pause while editing that comment made me leave out part of what I
was trying to say - I meant only discard notes that reference the CC reg. But
it seems an unnecessary complication.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Looks like other_insn is only used for cases where we rewrite cc sets in this
way, so Bin's patch does look reasonably narrow. We could maybe record the CC
reg being changed and only discard reg notes, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I am leaning toward accepting Bin's patch, but testing whether that hurts
generated code too much still hasn't finished.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> So do you think combiner should throw away the REG_EQUAL note in that case,
> or something different?
It's invalid after transformation, so should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(insn 37 35 39 7 (set (reg:SI 96)
(sign_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI 95) 0))) 86 {*extendqisi2_aarch64}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 95)
(nil)))
(insn 39 37 40 7 (set (reg:CC 66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment
14 matches
Mail list logo
