--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 20:48 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
This looks target-dependent, isn't it?
It might be but the older RA was able to handle this better. Look at the patch
and the decision that follows.
--
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-16 09:12 ---
This looks target-dependent, isn't it?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-24 23:00 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Did you made sure that this is not a ppc machine/cost description problem?
This sounds like what the patch which I mentioned in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg01323.html .
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:41 ---
Did you made sure that this is not a ppc machine/cost description problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-11 23:47 ---
I forgot to mention, not choosing a FLOAT_REG causes a reload to happen which
did not happen before.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-11 23:54 ---
The exact revision I was using is:
gcc version 4.4.0 20080910 (experimental) [trunk revision 140245] (GCC)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
