On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 02:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > where noce_try_store_flag_constants identifies
> >
> > (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 160 [ mod_tlen ])
> > (reg/v:SI 224 [ <retval> ]))
> >
> > as "common" and then tries to detect the case where setting the
> > result would clobber that value. It doesn't seem to expect
> > anything else than regs that can be equal to the destination though
> > which is clearly an oversight.
>
> > /* If we have x := test ? x + 3 : x + 4 then move the original
> > x out of the way while we store flags. */
> > - if (common && rtx_equal_p (common, if_info->x))
> > + if (common && reg_mentioned_p (if_info->x, common))
> > {
> > - common = gen_reg_rtx (mode);
> > - noce_emit_move_insn (common, if_info->x);
> > + rtx tem = gen_reg_rtx (mode);
> > + noce_emit_move_insn (tem, common);
> > + common = tem;
> > }
>
> I'm not so sure noce_emit_move_insn will reliably handle an arbitrary
> expression. I think a more conservative fix would be to disable this transform
> if common is not a reg.
I also wondered about this but then noce_emit_move_insn is quite elaborate
(calling into expanders eventually).
But if you prefer I can instead test the following
Index: gcc/ifcvt.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/ifcvt.c (revision 233262)
+++ gcc/ifcvt.c (working copy)
@@ -1274,7 +1274,7 @@ noce_try_store_flag_constants (struct no
&& CONST_INT_P (XEXP (a, 1))
&& CONST_INT_P (XEXP (b, 1))
&& rtx_equal_p (XEXP (a, 0), XEXP (b, 0))
- && noce_operand_ok (XEXP (a, 0))
+ && REG_P (XEXP (a, 0))
&& if_info->branch_cost >= 2)
{
common = XEXP (a, 0);
Thanks,
Richard.
