From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25521 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2006 16:20:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 25470 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2006 16:20:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060706162020.25469.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #3 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-06 16:20 ------- Subject: Re: gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional One note: I think "rdhwr $v1, $29" should not be placed in delay slot anyway. The instruction always generate an exception, so if it was in delay slot the kernel must calculate the target address of the preceding branch/jump instruction. Is it OK to add (set_attr "can_delay" "no") for "tls_get_tp_" definition? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28126