[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-03-02 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-03-02 14:54 --- Fixed in mainline. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-03-02 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30970

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-02-27 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 21:27 --- Subject: Bug 30970 Author: uros Date: Tue Feb 27 21:27:27 2007 New Revision: 122387 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122387 Log: PR target/30970 * config/i386/sse.md

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-02-26 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-02-26 15:48 --- It is a target issue. Working on a fix. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-02-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 17:35 --- Shouldn't rtl invariant motion catch this? -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-02-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.3.0 |--- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30970

[Bug target/30970] Register zeroing by xor N,N should be moved out of loop

2007-02-26 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-02-26 19:51 --- (In reply to comment #2) Shouldn't rtl invariant motion catch this? It would be nice, but the problem is again in the fact that we lie to the compiler about supported instructions. This one is not a valid x86 insn: