https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We could also make $0 a not legitimate constant on x86... (and undo that late
with a peephole2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
We could also make $0 a not legitimate constant on x86... (and undo that late
with a peephole2)
I tried that in 90's. At that time it increased register pressure and was not
win...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep, the problem with dealing arbitrarily long sequences is something we need
to solve. Also memcpy/memset ought to use vector moves by itself in these
cases..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-11 08:39:45 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-06-09 22:17:07 UTC
---
I suppose doing the $0x0 optimization should be done post-reload.
I was wondering how to implement this nice for some years already I don't
see how this can be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
