------- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-08-02 00:15 -------
This is the simplest patch that can possibly work:
Index: ../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- ../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c (revision 150334)
+++ ../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -14619,7 +14619,7 @@ ix86_fp_comparison_strategy (enum rtx_co
if (TARGET_CMOVE)
return IX86_FPCMP_COMI;
- if (TARGET_SAHF && (TARGET_USE_SAHF || optimize_insn_for_size_p ()))
+ if (TARGET_SAHF && (TARGET_USE_SAHF || optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun)))
return IX86_FPCMP_SAHF;
return IX86_FPCMP_ARITH;
I'm not sure if there is another patch that can work. :-)
Uros, do you think it's fine? I don't think that non-hot FP jumps are that
common. Definitely in the minimized testcase it's not a great prediction...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40934
