From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-280949-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4158 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 01:41:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 4148 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 01:41:31 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:41:25 +0000
Received: (qmail 22604 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2010 01:41:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?110.27.81.104?) (cltang@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Dec 2010 01:41:23 -0000
Message-ID: <4D06CB32.70304@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:18:00 -0000
From: Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
CC: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch, combine] Bit-field insertion optimization #2
References: <4D010FFC.6040805@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTin=7NEnC6RBh1c9W2BoKsMQHC3GCJY0tfKg0iDr@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=7NEnC6RBh1c9W2BoKsMQHC3GCJY0tfKg0iDr@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg01047.txt.bz2

On 2010/12/14 07:06, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> This patch is broken when we have:
> (insn 8 7 14 2 ins-23.c:25 (set (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 195 [ a ])
>             (const_int 8 [0x8])
>             (const_int 12 [0xc]))
>         (reg:SI 196)) 214 {insvsi} (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int -1
> [0xffffffffffffffff])
>         (nil)))
> 
> It does the correct thing of replacing it with:
> (set (reg:SI 195 [ a ])
>     (ior:SI (reg:SI 4 $4 [ a ])
>         (const_int 1044480 [0xff000])))
> But then it does remove the reg_equal from the instruction which
> causes us to get:
> (set (reg/i:DI 2 $2)
>     (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]))

Hi Andrew, thanks for testing and finding this. Do you have a testcase I
can use?

Thanks!
Chung-Lin