Re: Ping shrink wrap patches

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>]

On 10/13/11 18:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/13/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote:
>> Without the ifcvt
>> optimization for a function "int foo (int x)" we might have something
>> like
>>
>>  r29 = r3; // save r3 in callee saved reg
>>  if (some test) goto exit_label
>>  // main body of foo, calling other functions
>>  r3 = 0;
>>  return;
>> exit_label:
>>  r3 = 1;
>>  return;
>>
>> Bernd's http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00380.html quite
>> happily rearranges the r29 assignment to be after the "if", and shrink
>> wrapping occurs.  With the ifcvt optimization we get
>>
>>  r29 = r3; // save r3 in callee saved reg
>>  r3 = 1;
>>  if (some test) goto exit_label
>>  // main body of foo, calling other functions
>>  r3 = 0;
>> exit_label:
>>  return;
> 
> I wonder if this can't be described as another case for moving an insn
> downwards in prepare_shrink_wrap, rather than stopping ifcvt?

I.e. something like this? Minimally tested by inspecting some generated
assembly. I haven't found a case where it enables extra shrink-wrapping
on i686, but maybe it's different on ppc?


Bernd

Attachment: prep-cst.diff
Description: Text document