------- Comment #13 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-08-02 09:59 ------- (In reply to comment #11)
> 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... Yes, I think this is OK. optimize_insn_for_size_p () is not stable through RTL passes, so we either don't split or generate invalid insn in certain cases (like the one above). In the above test, we expand via ARITH path, and switch to SAHF somewhere during optimization passes. Since the comparison in the expanded insn is not valid for SAHF, it is not split. And since splitters depend on stable predicates to split expanded sequences, we have no other choice. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40934
