Hi,
I checked in this patch as an obvious fix to correct a comment typo
in ix86_split_lea_for_addr. The line below the comments is
gcc_assert (regno2 != regno0);
There is no way for r1 = r1 + C * r1. It should be r1 = r1 + C * r2.
H.J.
---
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (revision 206744)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2014-01-17 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
+
+ * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_split_lea_for_addr): Fix a comment
+ typo.
+
2014-01-17 John David Anglin <dang...@gcc.gnu.org>
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_attr_length_indirect_call): Don't output a short
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 206744)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -18309,7 +18309,7 @@ ix86_split_lea_for_addr (rtx insn, rtx o
/* Case r1 = r1 + ... */
if (regno1 == regno0)
{
- /* If we have a case r1 = r1 + C * r1 then we
+ /* If we have a case r1 = r1 + C * r2 then we
should use multiplication which is very
expensive. Assume cost model is wrong if we
have such case here. */
