Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] ARM cmpsi2_addneg fix follow-up (PR target/89506))

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The first one uses constraints and no C code in the output, I believe it is
> actually more expensive for compile time, because if one just reads what
> constrain_operands needs to do for another constraint, it is quite a lot.
> I've tried to at least not introduce new constraints for this, there is no
> constraint for number 1 (or for number -1).
> The Pu constraint is thumb2 only for numbers 1..8, and the alternative uses
> I constraint for the negation of it, i.e. -8..-1, only -1 from this is
> valid for I.  If that matches, we emit adds with #1, otherwise just prefer
> subs over adds.
> 
> The other swaps the alternatives similarly to the above, but for the special
> case of desirable adds with #1 uses C code instead of another alternative.
> 
> Ok for trunk (which one)?

I'd like to ping these patches:

> 2019-03-04  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR target/89506
> 	* config/arm/arm.md (cmpsi2_addneg): Swap the alternatives, add
> 	another alternative with I constraint for operands[2] and Pu
> 	for operands[3] and emit adds in that case, don't use C code to
> 	emit the instruction.

or:

> 2019-03-04  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR target/89506
> 	* config/arm/arm.md (cmpsi2_addneg): Swap the alternatives and use
> 	subs for the first alternative except when operands[3] is 1.

	Jakub