This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.5] Find more autoinc addressing for induction variables
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "F. Kenneth Zadeck" <kenneth dot zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:56:13 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [4.5] Find more autoinc addressing for induction variables
- References: <4A0C4F06.3080707@t-online.de> <571f6b510905150525g22898204p340aa5540644f5bd@mail.gmail.com> <4A0D8599.7080305@t-online.de> <4A0E031F.7030007@t-online.de> <20090516001642.GA3663@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4A1BD27C.1070404@t-online.de> <20090528213424.GA31461@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4A7241B7.8030705@t-online.de> <20090806125906.GA11247@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4A7AE568.2020403@t-online.de> <84fc9c000908060623l5abc4b96o4d24739173d4b34a@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>> I've tested this on ppc-eabisim, and it does seem to generate preinc
> >>> addressing modes there. ÂIt also survives a regression test on that
> >>> target.
> >>
> >> the patch is OK.
> >
> > Thanks. ÂAny thoughts on whether renumber_gimple_stmt_uids needs to be
> > changed to renumber phis as well?
>
> I think it is an oversight that it doesn't do that. Though likely
> nobody uses uids of PHIs (they are considered unordered by most passes,
> so an equal number less than all other stmts in the basic-block would
> suffice - would that also work for your case?)
Actually there better not be any pass relying on ordering of different PHI
nodes. They really represent parallel moves per edge, so they _have_ to
be considered unordered between themself.
Ciao,
Michael.