Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > I was wondering if the i386 port maintainers could have a look at this > > pattern. Shouldn't we really have two patterns, one to *load* an unaligned > > value and one to *store* and unaligned value, and not permit that memory > > access to get reloaded? > > Please find attached a fairly mechanical patch that splits > move_unaligned pattern into load_unaligned and store_unaligned > patterns. We've had some problems with this pattern, and finally we > found the reason to make unaligned moves more robust. > > I will wait for the confirmation that attached patch avoids the > failure you are seeing with your reload patch.
Yes, this patch does in fact fix the failure I was seeing with the reload patch. (A full regression test shows a couple of extra fails: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c scan-assembler sse_movups/1 FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-3.c scan-assembler sse2_movupd/1 FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-4.c scan-assembler avx_movups256/1 FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-4.c scan-assembler avx_movups256/2 But I guess these tests simply need to be updated for the new pattern names.) Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
