From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-39586-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7647 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2009 13:58:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 7637 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2009 13:58:57 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.153)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:58:52 +0000
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so1109884fga.8         for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:58:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.239.188.145 with SMTP id p17mr366667hbh.175.1261144728870;  	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:58:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <f94afa700912180546k2458c579o6623beae3331835b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f94afa700912152309r5d60f85cx943c5c2a98592383@mail.gmail.com> 	 <f94afa700912180250k5d33110y222a2faf5cabd98e@mail.gmail.com> 	 <7511306b0912180300t3dc6f0fek5db84416a49a9868@mail.gmail.com> 	 <f94afa700912180546k2458c579o6623beae3331835b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:19:00 -0000
Message-ID: <7511306b0912180558vd4d7b40xda0ec6b7d8ee4ef@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ins instruction is not produced in the assembly code (mips32r2)
From: Ineiev <ineiev@gmail.com>
To: fanqifei@gmail.com
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2

On 12/18/09, fanqifei <fanqifei@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Ineiev <ineiev@gmail.com>:
>> On 12/18/09, fanqifei <fanqifei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Otherwise, I have to write inline assembly code.
>>
>> Out of curiosity --- why do you think your executable has to use this
>> pattern?
> The instruction sequence generated by gcc can be simply rewritten by
> three instructions.

I see, thank you.

> Apparently gcc should find the expression storing to bit-field and use
> pattern insv. But it didn't.

I'm sorry (really), as I know nothing about the target architecture,
this is not apparent _for me_.

What I don't understand is why you _has_ to code it in assembler?
is your program essentially nothing but such assignments?
or the code gcc provides assigns something wrong?

I bag your pardon if this is too off-topic,
Ineiev