------- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 22:08 -------
Ok, thanks for investigating. I think we may need something like this:
@@ -17574,6 +17574,7 @@ (define_peephole2
|| GET_MODE (operands[0]) == HImode))
|| GET_MODE (operands[0]) == SImode
|| (TARGET_64BIT && GET_MODE (operands[0]) == DImode))
+ && peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])
/* We reorder load and the shift. */
&& !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[4])"
[(set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 4))
Testing now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44727
