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 i386]: Combine memory and indirect jump


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.

Did you test effect on code-generation of this change on other targets?

Btw, there is now no DCE after peephole2?  Is peephole2 expected to
cleanup after itself?

Richard.

>
> r~


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