This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- From: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas dot preudhomme at arm dot com>
- To: "'Jeff Law'" <law at redhat dot com>, "'Andrew Pinski'" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:56:24 +0800
- Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <00f001d044d4$23f37e20$6bda7a60$ at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1n0FZSdn4RqVHGmuoeA5+gb3MVxZheC0pFELWkRDO-mew at mail dot gmail dot com> <00f201d044d8$0131ccd0$03956670$ at arm dot com> <54DAF0CD dot 9030701 at redhat dot com> <00f401d045c5$f0853540$d18f9fc0$ at arm dot com> <54DAFB52 dot 4020201 at redhat dot com>
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:49 PM
> > Wouldn't that only tell whether the macro can stay undefined for
> > MD files for rs6000 could have been tighten since then but not others
> > backend's MD files.
> It's certainly possible, but unlikely.
> I would virtually guarantee that lm32, rx, & mep, rx, tilegx, tilegxpro
> were never updated.
Perfect, I was hoping that one of these others might not have changed
> So another approach would be to build some cross tools and verify that
> they generate the same code before/after ripping that code out.
Of course both approaches are not exclusive. I'll try to test with *both*
rs6000 bootstrap and with a cross-compiler for one of these targets.
> You have to request access. IIRC, there's a big ppc64 machine in there.