> + /* If the comparison has not already been split out of the branch
> + then do so now. */
> + if (REGNO (cmp_reg) != CC_REG)
> + {
> + rtx cmp;
> +
> + cmp = emit_insn_before (gen_cmpsi (cmp_reg, XEXP (comparison, 1)),
> branch);
> +
> + DUMP ("Extracted comparison from branch:", cmp);
> + }
This should never ever fire. These should have been split already,
at least with optimization, on which this pass is dependant. Just
assert here, if you like.
> +mn10300_block_contains_call (struct basic_block_def * block)
basic_block block
> + for (insn = block->il.rtl->head_;
> + insn != NULL_RTX;
> + insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
> + {
> + if (CALL_P (insn))
> + return true;
> +
> + if (insn == block->il.rtl->end_)
> + break;
> + }
FOR_BB_INSNS (block, insn)
if (CALL_P (insn))
return true;
> + df_analyze ();
> + if (flow_loops_find (& loops) > 0)
> + {
> + unsigned int i;
> + loop_p loop;
> +
> + FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (loop_p, loops.larray, i, loop)
You need compute_bb_for_insn, and to set up current_loops.
Then you can use
FOR_EACH_LOOP(liter, loop, LI_ONLY_INNERMOST)
instead of iterating over the array by hand. This will eliminate
at least the fake loop and non-innermost loop check that you do
by hand. Of course, current_loops must be cleared at the end.
> + else if (loop->header != loop->latch)
> + reason = "it is not a simple do-while loop";
Why? A loop with multiple blocks should be fine with Lcc.
I do see that you've got loop->header and loop->latch backward
further below; perhaps that was your reason for this?
> + rtx branch = loop->header->il.rtl->end_;
BB_END (loop->latch)
> + if (single_set (branch) == NULL_RTX
> + || GET_CODE (SET_SRC (single_set (branch))) != IF_THEN_ELSE)
!any_condjump_p (branch)
> + label = loop->latch->il.rtl->head_;
BB_HEAD (loop->header)
> + /* If necessary, extract the label from the branch insn. */
> + if (! LABEL_P (label))
This should never ever fire -- how else can the loop have been created?
Again, you can just assert here.
> + /* FIXME: Calling flow_loops_free() appears to be the correct thing to
> do,
> + but it results in a seg-fault when building regex.c in the target
> libiberty
> + library. I have no idea why; so I have disabled the call for now. */
> + /* flow_loops_free (& loops); */
I'm having a look into this. It's definitely non-obvious...
r~
