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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store

From: Jim Wilson <wilson at tuliptree dot org>
To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
Cc: rth at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 08 Jul 2003 16:27:41 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
References: <20030629132626.GA3044@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><3F0520FB.9060205@tuliptree.org><20030704172151.GA6995@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><1057553291.1471.141.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org><20030707184547.GA28658@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><1057616600.1020.50.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> <20030708182012.GA16172@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 11:20, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> can mem be inside STRICT_LOW_PART?

No, I guess not.  That doesn't make any sense.

> what about this patch (completely untested)?

Yes, this looks reasonable to me.  In load_kills_store, and in
store_killed_in_insn, the "if (after)" checks should instead be "if
(!after)".  Otherwise it looks OK.  You could simplify load_kills_store
a little.  No need for the inner if statements, just directly return the
result of true_dependence/anti_dependence.

Jim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Jim Wilson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Jim Wilson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Jim Wilson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix (?) load_kills_store
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak

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