http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56451
Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-11-25
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hm, I'm just poking around here, sorry if it's just useless noise ...
In dbr_schedule, doing:
fill_simple_delay_slots (1);
fill_simple_delay_slots (0);
fill_eager_delay_slots ();
relax_delay_slots (first);
or
// fill_simple_delay_slots (1);
fill_simple_delay_slots (0);
fill_eager_delay_slots ();
relax_delay_slots (first);
-> produces bad code.
fill_simple_delay_slots (1);
fill_simple_delay_slots (0);
// fill_eager_delay_slots ();
relax_delay_slots (first);
-> doesn't do anything to the code.
// fill_simple_delay_slots (1);
// fill_simple_delay_slots (0);
fill_eager_delay_slots ();
relax_delay_slots (first);
or
fill_simple_delay_slots (1);
// fill_simple_delay_slots (0);
fill_eager_delay_slots ();
relax_delay_slots (first);
-> results in the following code (looks OK):
mov.l .L8,r1
cmp/ge r1,r5
bf/s .L11
mov #1,r0
cmp/gt r1,r5
bt/s .L6
mov #2,r0
mov.l .L9,r1
cmp/hs r1,r4
bt .L6
mov #1,r0
.L6:
.align 1
.L11:
rts
nop
.L10:
