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]

Re: [patches] Re: combine and noop moves, take 2

To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, patches at x86-64 dot org
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: combine and noop moves, take 2
From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:12:58 +0200
References: <20010720223812.A14262@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010720143214.E3387@redhat.com> <20010722212306.K16407@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010722160534.B13764@redhat.com>

> What if we enshrine INT_MAX as the meaning "a noop move", by
> 
>   #define NOOP_MOVE_INSN_CODE  INT_MAX
> 
> Then noop_move_p has a nice fast path to returning true for
> this case.  It might not make that much difference, but at
> least it would document a bit more what's going on.
OK.
My original tought was to avoid setting the code back to insn, but this
looks like better solution.

Honza
> 
> 
> 
> r~

References:
- combine and noop moves, take 2
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: combine and noop moves, take 2
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: combine and noop moves, take 2
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: combine and noop moves, take 2
  - From: Richard Henderson

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