Re: [PATCH, GCC, stage1] Fallback to copy-prop if constant-prop not possible

[Steven Bosscher]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> What about the cprop_reg_p that needs to be negated? Did I miss something
> that makes it ok?

You didn't miss anything.  I sent the wrong patch. The one I tested on
ppc64 also has the condition reversed:

@@ -1328,9 +1329,8 @@ implicit_set_cond_p (const_rtx cond)
   if (GET_CODE (cond) != EQ && GET_CODE (cond) != NE)
     return false;

-  /* The first operand of COND must be a pseudo-reg.  */
-  if (! REG_P (XEXP (cond, 0))
-      || HARD_REGISTER_P (XEXP (cond, 0)))
+  /* The first operand of COND must be a register we can propagate.  */
+  if (! cprop_reg_p (XEXP (cond, 0)))
     return false;

   /* The second operand of COND must be a suitable constant.  */