--- Comment #9 from carrot at google dot com 2009-11-23 08:51 ---
Fixed by Richard. Close it.
--
carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #8 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 14:10
---
Subject: Bug 40835
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 4 14:09:55 2009
New Revision: 153895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153895
Log:
2009-11-04 Richard Earnshaw
PR target/40835
--- Comment #7 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-24 14:08
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> In fact even the compare isn't a separate insn:
There's a reason for that.
If you separate compares from uses of the flags then reload may end up
inserting add or mov instructions in be
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-24 08:48 ---
In fact even the compare isn't a separate insn:
@(insn 6 5 7 t.c:5 (set (reg/v:SI 1 r1 [orig:133 v ] [133])
@(reg:SI 0 r0)) 167 {*thumb1_movsi_insn} (nil))
@ 0x0004
mov r1, r0 @ 6 *thumb1_mov
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-24 08:25 ---
The fact that the move sets the condition code is not modelled in the insn.
>From .expand dump:
(insn 6 5 7 3 t.c:5 (set (reg/v:SI 133 [ v ])
(reg:SI 0 r0)) -1 (nil))
>From -dAP output:
@(insn 6 5 7 t.c:5 (s
--- Comment #4 from carrot at google dot com 2009-07-24 07:37 ---
Just as I've figured out HAVE_cc0 is disabled. And cse_condition_code_reg does
nothing for thumb target.
I also found that the conditional branch instructions is always in the same
insn pattern as the previous compare ins
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-24 06:59 ---
Because HAVE_cc0 is only for cc0 targets, and ARM is not one of those?
You should stop jumping to peepholes for every missed optimization you find.
There is a csecc pass (part of cse2) that should handle this. You sh
--- Comment #2 from carrot at google dot com 2009-07-24 02:11 ---
It seems HAVE_cc0 disabled for arm. What's the reason behind it?
A simple method is to add a peephole rule to handle it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40835
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2009-07-23 08:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=18241)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18241&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40835
