[patch tree-optimization]: Improve handling of conditional-branches on targets with high branch costs
Thu Oct 6 14:26:00 GMT 2011
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Michael Matz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > + && ((TREE_CODE_CLASS (TREE_CODE (arg1)) != tcc_comparison
>> > + && TREE_CODE (arg1) != TRUTH_NOT_EXPR)
>> > + || !FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (arg1, 0)))))
>> ? simple_operand_p would have rejected both ! and comparisons.
>> I miss a test for side-effects on arg0 (and probably simple_operand_p there,
>> as well).
> He has it in the if() body. But why? The point of ANDIF/ORIF is to not
> evaluate the second argument for side-effects when the first argument is
> false/true already, and further to establish an order between both
> evaluations. The sideeffect on the first arg is always evaluated.
> AND/OR always evaluate both arguments (in unspecified order), but as he
> checks the second one for being free of side effects already that alone is
> already equivalent to ANDIF/ORIF. No need to check something on the first
It seems to me it should then simply be
if (!TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (arg1)
&& simple_operand_p (arg1))
return fold-the-not-and-variant ();
More information about the Gcc-patches