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] |
On 06/23/14 08:32, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:On 06/20/2014 02:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:So I suggest following change of passes.def: Index: passes.def =================================================================== --- passes.def (Revision 211850) +++ passes.def (Arbeitskopie) @@ -384,7 +384,6 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see NEXT_PASS (pass_rtl_dse2); NEXT_PASS (pass_stack_adjustments); NEXT_PASS (pass_jump2); - NEXT_PASS (pass_peephole2); NEXT_PASS (pass_if_after_reload); NEXT_PASS (pass_regrename); NEXT_PASS (pass_cprop_hardreg); @@ -391,6 +390,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see NEXT_PASS (pass_fast_rtl_dce); NEXT_PASS (pass_duplicate_computed_gotos); NEXT_PASS (pass_reorder_blocks); + NEXT_PASS (pass_peephole2); NEXT_PASS (pass_branch_target_load_optimize2); NEXT_PASS (pass_leaf_regs); NEXT_PASS (pass_split_before_sched2);Looks good to me. I guess just keep an eye out for bug reports for other ports.Maybe put a comment here because it looks like a random placement to me which would be obvious to revert. peepholing before if-after-reload sounds good anyway.
Definitely need a comment on the pass placement.
There were cases where we wanted to change the insns we would output to fit into the 4:1:1 issue model of the PPro, but to do so we needed to know what registers were live/dead so that we could rewrite the insns appropriately. It didn't fit well into what we could do in the splitters and the old peephole ran too late. Dead code wasn't ever really considered. At least that's my recollection. RTH might recall more.Btw, there is now no DCE after peephole2? Is peephole2 expected to cleanup after itself?
I think it'd be worth an experiment here, but I think that can/should happen independently of Kai's patch. Arguably the scheduler should have all the necessary dataflow information to quickly identify any dead code.
Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |