On 22 January 2016 at 18:07, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The bare CONST_INT inside the CCmode IF_THEN_ELSE is causing combine to make
> incorrect simplifications. At this stage it feels safer to wrap the
> CONST_INT inside of an UNSPEC than make more generic changes to combine.
>
On 01/25/2016 05:28 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> After this, I'm seeing this test now FAILs:
> gcc.target/aarch64/ccmp_1.c scan-assembler adds\t
That test case is badly written. In addition to that one, several of the other
failures that I see within that file are simply equally optimal
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/25/2016 05:28 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > After this, I'm seeing this test now FAILs:
> > gcc.target/aarch64/ccmp_1.c scan-assembler adds\t
>
> That test case is badly written. In addition to that one, several of the
> other
> failures that I see within that
The bare CONST_INT inside the CCmode IF_THEN_ELSE is causing combine to make
incorrect simplifications. At this stage it feels safer to wrap the CONST_INT
inside of an UNSPEC than make more generic changes to combine.
But we should definitely investigate combine's CCmode issues for gcc7.
On 22/01/16 17:07, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The bare CONST_INT inside the CCmode IF_THEN_ELSE is causing combine to
> make incorrect simplifications. At this stage it feels safer to wrap
> the CONST_INT inside of an UNSPEC than make more generic changes to
> combine.
>
> But we should