From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32046 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2008 15:20:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 31746 invoked by uid 48); 2 Aug 2008 15:19:38 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080802151938.31745.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/36992] Very stange code for _mm_move_epi64 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hjl dot tools at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-08-02 15:19 ------- We should also test -O0. This code: extern __inline __m128i __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__)) _mm_movpi64_epi64 (__m64 __A) { return _mm_set_epi64 ((__m64)0LL, __A); } extern __inline __m128i __attribute__((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__)) _mm_move_epi64 (__m128i __A) { return _mm_set_epi64 ((__m64)0LL, _mm_movepi64_pi64 (__A)); } Why do we use _mm_movepi64_pi64 at all? _mm_movepi64_pi64 is an MMX intrinsic. It isn't necessary here. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36992