From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-394475-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10541 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2012 11:04:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 10522 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2012 11:04:00 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_DD,TW_ZJ
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:03:48 +0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/43616] Extra register move
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:04:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Target Known to fail
Message-ID: <bug-43616-4-XDR9UjxU2P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-43616-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-43616-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg01102.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43616

Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|arm-eabi                    |arm-eabi, x86
      Known to fail|                            |

--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2012-06-17 11:03:47 UTC ---
The same problem happens on x86_64:

--cut here--
void foo (void);

float test (float a, float b)
{
  foo ();
  return b;
}
--cut here--

gcc -O2

test:
.LFB0:
        subq    $24, %rsp
        movss   %xmm1, (%rsp)
        call    foo
A       movss   (%rsp), %xmm1
        addq    $24, %rsp
B       movaps  %xmm1, %xmm0
        ret

We could move from stack directly to xmm0