From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 29AF83858427; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:08:59 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 29AF83858427 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1711602539; bh=esRO/CxBfR1E9ujYkpgFyC+T2IajIWHU6mUWevrnzlE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YJXwDaM9KttdwfCig44sfpBRHqLGD5FnIy0NHXlOomqtMFMFsh+HwQqrCAxQ3WP9r lXXP5yStLokt5n9Jlso2+XfzY3IFkQqfbB1rPPiWcf2trCu4Q0S61lP1P0Rjv15ukQ 7YRrFGQwi/+fre0p3/RPfIF8Vpr2oO9mNNIeiEPY= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/58166] ARMv5: poor register allocation in function containing smull instruction Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:08:57 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status target_milestone resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58166 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |5.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- The trunk-GCC9 produces: ``` mov r3, r0 mov r2, r1 smull r0, r1, r3, r2 bx lr ``` GCC 5.4.0-8.5.0 produces: ``` smull r2, r3, r0, r1 mov r0, r2 mov r1, r3 bx lr ``` I don't have a 4.9.x compiler around to test. So I am going to assume this was fixed, at least in GCC 5.=