This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New x86 backend and my regstack changes...
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Subject: Re: New x86 backend and my regstack changes...
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:40:25 -0700
- Cc: egcs-patches at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- References: <19990622163925.51408@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <19990622095546.B1012@cygnus.com> <19990624170020.62399@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <19990624105721.C21778@cygnus.com> <19990625152610.53046@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <19990625113107.B23285@cygnus.com> <19990701175707.31713@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <19990701172714.A3985@cygnus.com> <19990702155224.58932@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 03:52:24PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > My question here is whether we should be preferencing ax as you are.
> > Do you get better (or smaller, for some reasonably large source) code
> > if you use "%*a,rm" instead?
>
> I will try it. The eax case is better, because short version of test
> instruction results (test instruciton with immediate and non-eax parameter
> is one byte longer). Fact is that this messes up the preferences in other
> forms of test instruction as well, so your suggestion is most probably good
> idea. I've done this change before the peepholers, that now does most of
> the job. W/o peepholers this change helped a bit on XaoS executable. With
> the peepholers it is hard to see test imm at all now..
> So please add the asterisk there...
Ok, will-do.
r~