From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67958 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2018 21:12:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 67945 invoked by uid 89); 9 Nov 2018 21:12:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 21:12:26 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC62307DAAA; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:12:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-25.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1725C19940; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] combine: Do not combine moves from hard registers To: Segher Boessenkool , Sam Tebbs Cc: Steve Ellcey , Andreas Schwab , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "bergner@linux.ibm.com" References: <1540571945.12895.67.camel@cavium.com> <20181026164805.GN5205@gate.crashing.org> <7bc8697f-a09e-627f-b032-eba5ecb682ac@arm.com> <20181108203418.GT5994@gate.crashing.org> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 21:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181108203418.GT5994@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 On 11/8/18 1:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:44:44PM +0000, Sam Tebbs wrote: >> Does your patch fix the incorrect generation of "scvtf s1, s1"? I was >> looking at the issue as well and don't want to do any overlapping work. > > I don't know. Well, there are no incorrect code issues I know of at all > now; but you mean that it is taking an instruction more than you would > like to see, I suppose? Which is ultimately similar to the 3 regressions HJ has reported on x86_64. jeff