On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:57:02AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/18/2017 04:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:49:06PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>Solved, tail call was responsible for dead RTL instructions.
> >
> >This seems similar to
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml
On 07/18/2017 04:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:49:06PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
Solved, tail call was responsible for dead RTL instructions.
This seems similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00362.html
then. Is it?
There are many cases where
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:49:06PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Solved, tail call was responsible for dead RTL instructions.
This seems similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00362.html
then. Is it?
There are many cases where we generated dead code during expand on
purpose (som
Solved, tail call was responsible for dead RTL instructions.
Martin
On 07/18/2017 09:16 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> I've been working on PR59521 and I'm unable to properly emit RTL instructions
> in expand_builtin_mempcpy. At the end of the function I have:
Correction, it's PR70140.
M.
Hello.
I've been working on PR59521 and I'm unable to properly emit RTL instructions
in expand_builtin_mempcpy. At the end of the function I have:
...
(insn 12 11 13 (set (reg:DI 5 di)
(reg:DI 90)) "/home/marxin/Programming/testcases/mempcpy-1.c":1 -1
(nil))
(call_insn/j 13 12 14 (s