From 1bc5aee63eb72b341f506ad058502cd0361f0d10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Cheng Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:37:19 -0700 Subject: Initial checkin of GCC 4.9.0 from trunk (r208799). Change-Id: I48a3c08bb98542aa215912a75f03c0890e497dba --- gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c (limited to 'gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c') diff --git a/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..afae22d37 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/sse-1.c @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +/* PR 12902 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O1 -msse" } */ + +#include + +typedef union +{ + int i[4]; + float f[4]; + __m128 v; +} vector4_t; + +void +swizzle (const void *a, vector4_t * b, vector4_t * c) +{ + b->v = _mm_loadl_pi (b->v, (__m64 *) a); + c->v = _mm_loadl_pi (c->v, ((__m64 *) a) + 1); +} + +/* While one legal rendering of each statement would be movaps;movlps;movaps, + we can implmenent this with just movlps;movlps. Since we do now, anything + less would be a regression. */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "movaps" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movlps" } } */ -- cgit v1.2.3