https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> What I've shown is equivalent to (minus (minus (A) (B)) (C)), which is what
> combine produces today. Are you saying that the documentation disagrees on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> > Yes, but since
> > (A - B) - C = A - B - C = A - C - B = (A - C) - B
> > we can clearly swap the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> Yes, but since
> (A - B) - C = A - B - C = A - C - B = (A - C) - B
> we can clearly swap the order of the two RHS operands here.
My intent was to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
As for 'special' regs and their ordering, I'm not sure. I would suggest that
if we have a commutative operation with two registers and one of the registers
is marked as a pointer, then it should appear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #0)
>
> > Failed to match this instruction:
> > (set (reg:SI 125 [+4 ])
> > (minus:SI (minus:SI (reg:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92281
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
