subject:"\[Bug target\/100056\] \[9\/10\/11 Regression\] orr \+ lsl vs. \[us\]bfiz"

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-15 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39d23b7960e4efb11bbe1eff056ae9da0884c539 commit r11-8188-g39d23b7960e4efb11bbe1eff056ae9da0884c539 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 50586 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50586=edit gcc11-pr100056.patch Updated patch.

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #7 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50585 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50585=edit newer testcases (with 32 -> 64-bit extensions)

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #6 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. OTOH, for the signed case things seems to be OK unless the sign extension is

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #5 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- Created attachment 50584 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50584=edit updated test cases

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 50583 [details] > gcc11-pr100056.patch > > Untested fix. Mmmm, that's working fine for the cases I had but not in more general cases.

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 50583 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50583=edit gcc11-pr100056.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression] orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz

2021-04-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100056 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, the change is that previously there was just one significant combination, Trying 7 -> 8: 7: r96:SI=r94:SI<<0xb 8: r95:SI=r96:SI|r94:SI REG_DEAD r96:SI REG_DEAD r94:SI Successfully