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: peephole2 vs cond-exec vs df



Second, I've changed it to use a forward scan.  As far as I am aware, in
the presence of conditional execution, a forward scan does not need to
keep track of extra state - it only relies on correct REG_DEAD notes.  I
don't actually know whether df produces correct death notes in the
presence of conditional execution (I suspect it does not - can anyone
say for sure?), but in any case using a forward scan here shifts the
problem out of recog.c entirely.  Only when performing a substitution do
we process the new insns in a backward scan, since they won't have
REG_DEAD notes.

Yes, I thought a bit about it and it seems accurate. At least I couldn't find a counterexample. :)


Paolo


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