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] |
On 03/09/15 03:53, Steven Bosscher wrote:
RIght. I'd rather look into why later passes aren't discovering whatever equivalences are important rather than adding the redundant notes.On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Alex Velenko wrote:For example, in arm testcase pr43920-2.c, CSE previously decided not to put an "obvious" note on insn 9, as set value was the same as note value. At the same time, other insns set up as -1 were set up through a register and did get a note:...which is the point of the REG_EQUAL notes. In insn 8 there is a REG_EQUAL note to show that the value of r111 is known. In insn 9 the known value is, well, known from SET_SRC so there is no need for a REG_EQUAL note. Adding REG_EQUAL notes in such cases is just wasteful.
Regardless, I think this is a gcc-6 issue, so I'm not likely to look at it in the immediate future.
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |