[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-26 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > so quite hard if not impossible to "fix" in genemit The most complex one I saw in action was mod3 in aarch64.md: (define_expand "mod3" [(match_operand:GPI 0

[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2) > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > > > > >

[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-26 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2) > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 > > > > --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---

[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-26 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 > > --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug middle-end/103439] genemit emits dead code

2021-11-26 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103439 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0) > I'm not sure if there are valid cases where we have a mix of a direct > RTL pattern and manual expansion, so where the { } part falls thru. Yes, we have quite