From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <XFMail.010411175519.pochini@shiny.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <200104111415.f3BEFkQ28728@ashley.ivey.uwo.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:55:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>
To: "Kevin B. Hendricks" <khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: another difference in gcc (2v) ?
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>


> Lost in the huge diff was one other change, this time in the actual code
> itself.
>
> Can anyone tell me if this code resequence is legal?  The diff (-) lines
> show the nonworking disassembled code (generated by -O2) while the
> diff's (+) lines show the working code (generated by -O2
> -fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2. [...]
> Is this a correct resequence ?

The two sequences seems equivalent IMHO.



Bye.
    Giuliano Pochini ->)|(<- Shiny Network {AS6665} ->)|(<-


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/