From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-384714-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11768 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2012 08:42:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 11755 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2012 08:42:00 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:41:36 +0000
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/49468] SH Target: inefficient integer abs code
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:44:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49468-4-OiR04iWnTj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49468-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49468-4@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: 2012-02/txt/msg02648.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468

--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-28 08:41:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 26768
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26768
Patch to add DImode abs

The attached patch adds DImode abs and did not introduce new failures when
tested against rev 184589.
I'm a bit confused, as this is exactly the same code as I used before to add
DImode abs, and before it was failing in some cases.  Either there was another
bug that got fixed in the middle-end optimizers, or this is just coincidence. 
I've seen that other expanders use force_reg to make sure that operands will be
in regs ... would that be the safer way of doing it?