This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

fix for cc0 targets and new jump


Hi,
I am getting confident that CC0 targets will be unhappy about my new jump
pass, as I am not killing the cc0 setters.  Unfortunately I don't have any
cc0 target to test, but following patch should do the trick.

Note that for tablejump, I may keep the computation there for a while, as I
kill only the jump instruction, not the index computed.  Old jump pass is
messing arround with delete_computation, but this is also not very well
designed.  Should I set flag and call delete_trivially_dead_insns (updated for
flowgraph) afterwards if converison happends, or do you think it is OK to just
ignore it?

Honza

Fri Jun 29 11:37:38 CEST 2001  Jan Hubicka  <jh@suse.cz>

	* flow.c (try_redirect_by_replacing_jump): Remove cc0 setter.

Index: flow.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/egcs/gcc/flow.c,v
retrieving revision 1.410
diff -c -3 -p -r1.410 flow.c
*** flow.c	2001/06/29 03:30:17	1.410
--- flow.c	2001/06/29 09:36:38
*************** try_redirect_by_replacing_jump (e, targe
*** 1707,1712 ****
--- 1707,1726 ----
    else if (!fallthru && GET_CODE (barrier) != BARRIER)
      emit_barrier_after (insn);
  
+   /* In case we've zapped an conditional jump, we need to kill the cc0
+      setter too if available.  */
+ #ifdef HAVE_cc0
+   insn = src->end;
+   if (GET_CODE (insn) == JUMP_INSN)
+     insn = prev_nonnote_insn (insn);
+   if (sets_cc0_p (insn))
+     {
+       if (insn == src->end)
+ 	src->end = PREV_INSN (insn);
+       flow_delete_insn (insn);
+     }
+ #endif
+ 
    if (e->dest != target)
      redirect_edge_succ (e, target);
    return true;


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]