On 7/19/23 02:08, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
de.
I stumbled upon the same thing when doing an aarch64 bootstrap build yesterday.
Given that this causes issues, maybe doing
int icode = INSN_CODE (insn);
...
INSN_CODE (insn) = icode;
Is a good option and should also be more performant.
I nearly suggested you do something like this, but ultimately it's a
workaround for target bugs. So part of me wants to keep it as is, but I
can also understand the desire to make a chance like you've suggesting.
Even with that I'm still getting a segfault while doing a bootstrap
build that I'm investigating.
Sounds good. I still need to drop the V3 into my tester and validate
the m68k (and everything else) just works. I'm slightly concerned about
SH, but it's still failing even after taking the V2 out of the tester,
so the SH issues are clearly unrelated to f-m-o.
I'll take Vineet's testcase and verify that we can just use an integer
store to handle the 0.0 case. As I mentioned, that's the right thing to
do anyway from both a correctness and performance standpoint. I'll also
review the movsf pattern for the same problem/optimization.
jeff
