This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compare-elim pass (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 61225)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang dot chen at linaro dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 09:38:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: Compare-elim pass (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 61225)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4YmXQncYbPa+6-zjNqCEdRam8Lc5S3GB5YNbksPeonvXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <3249058 dot ZmxRDWLt50 at polaris> <CAFULd4ahL-EfNiqOXJOEHuO0RwLf=5HGR2GySuU6hQ3sqPbZ9g at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 09:28:57AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > That's already what it does though, did you mean the opposite? Or did you
> > mean to write "combine" instead of "compare"?
>
> The above should read "... that existing RTX *combine* pass be updated
> ...", thanks for pointing out!
Which target actually uses the [(operation) (set (cc) ...)] order in their
*.md patterns? Even aarch64 and arm use the [(set (cc) ...) (operation)]
order that combine expects, I thought compare-elim was written for those
targets? If the vast majority of mds use the order that combine expects,
I think it should be easier to adjust compare-elim.c and those few targets
that diverge.
Jakub