------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-30 11:49 -------
asmcons does:
-(insn 6 3 11 2 t.i:5 (parallel [
- (set (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])
+(insn 21 3 6 2 t.i:5 (set (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
+ (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])) -1 (nil))
+
+(insn 6 21 11 2 t.i:5 (parallel [
+ (set (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
(asm_operands:SI ("") ("=&c") 0 [
- (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])
- (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])
+ (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
+ (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
]
[
(asm_input:SI ("1") ("") 0)
@@ -43,8 +48,8 @@
] ("t.i") 5))
(set (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
(asm_operands:SI ("") ("=r") 1 [
- (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])
- (reg/v:SI 60 [ n ])
+ (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
+ (reg/v:SI 58 [ x ])
]
[
(asm_input:SI ("1") ("") 0)
but I wonder if the testcase is valid, as it overlaps an output in xmm
register ('x') with an immediate input ('n'). And if you look at
the output at -O0 we get
#APP
# 5 "t.i" 1
# %ecx %eax
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
that is, no xmm register allocated. What does the unreduced asm look like?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Breakage caused by the fix |[4.3 Regression] Breakage
|to PR33552 |caused by the fix to PR33552
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33600
