https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Does that also fix PR89795?
Yes, I'm going to fix PR89795 and let you check what happens for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > That change added the && !REG_P in there, but unless the reg is loaded from
> > memory, it is unclear how it can guarantee that the upper bits are zero
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks very similar to PR89795 on arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this has been introduced in PR59461 change and is contrary to what is
documented:
"The high-order bits of rvalues are defined in the following circumstances:
@itemize
@item @code{subreg}s of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> > So, the bug is either in nonzero_bits that it for the
> > WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND returns
> > 0s in the upper bits,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If W_O_R with load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND says that the upper bits
are all clear, then
(insn 34 33 35 (set (reg:QI 15 a5 [orig:94 iftmp.0_7 ] [94])
(const_int -128 [0xff80]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, the bug is either in nonzero_bits that it for the
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND returns
> 0s in the upper bits, or in
> simplify_and_const_int trusting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Isn't this *exactly* what WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS says is okay to do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
11 matches
Mail list logo
