https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > Is this a dup of PR 69693?
>
> Yes, indeed. The issue with too many moves remain, I'll open a new PR for
> that.
I'll also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Is this a dup of PR 69693?
Yes, indeed. The issue with too many moves remain, I'll open a new PR for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Is this a dup of PR 69693?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Without STV, there are too many moves. -O2 -m32 -mno-stv should generate
something like:
movl4(%esp), %eax
movl8(%esp), %edx
shldl $3, %eax, %edx
shll$3, %eax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
