https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What makes that move redundant? I don't see it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
IOW, we need hard numbers, not guesstimates :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why would that be unlikely? It lengthens the lifetime of that pseudo,
potentially significantly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> Of course it first tried to do
>
> Failed to match this instruction:
> (parallel [
> (set (reg:DI 101 [ _9 ])
> (ctz:DI (reg/v:DI 98 [ x ])))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Of course it first tried to do
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set (reg:DI 101 [ _9 ])
(ctz:DI (reg/v:DI 98 [ x ])))
(set (reg:DI 100)
(ctz:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
