Re: [PATCH] PR target/50038 fix: redundant zero extensions removal

[Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>]

Hello Eric,

Thanks for review!

2011/11/10 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>:
>> So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
>> would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
>> EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
>> bit which is really good for such simple optimization. For OOO archs
>> patch is not so critical but still makes code cleaner
>
> The patch cannot be accepted as-is since it doesn't update a single bit of the
> documentation present in implicit-zee.c. ?The authors have made the effort of
> thoroughly documenting their code so it shouldn't be wasted. ?Therefore, at a
> minimum, the documentation must be overhauled the same way the code will be.
>
> I agree that the numbers are encouraging. ?Moreover, the narrow specialization
> of the pass was critized when it was added so a generalization will probably
> be welcome. ?So, unless other developers object, let's do it, but correctly,
> that is to say, let's rename the pass, eliminate all the hardcoded references
> to implicit zero-extensions in the code and turn it into a generic elimination
> of redundant extensions pass.

Great! I'll be back with patch covering all non functional changes.
Will it be OK to have everything in one patch (including current
functional changes) or I should split it?

>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
>

Thanks,
Ilya