On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 00:10, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6/3/24 5:34 AM, Manolis Tsamis wrote: > > Currently the operations allowed for if conversion of a basic block with > > multiple sets are few, namely REG, SUBREG and CONST_INT (as controlled by > > bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets). > > > > This commit allows more operations (arithmetic, compare, etc) to participate > > in if conversion. The target's profitability hook and ifcvt's costing is > > expected to reject sequences that are unprofitable. > > > > This is especially useful for targets which provide a rich selection of > > conditional instructions (like aarch64 which has cinc, csneg, csinv, ccmp, > > ...) > > which are currently not used in basic blocks with more than a single set. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * ifcvt.cc (try_emit_cmove_seq): Modify comments. > > (noce_convert_multiple_sets_1): Modify comments. > > (bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets): Allow more operations. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/ifcvt_multiple_sets_arithm.c: New test. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu> > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > - Remove unnecessary hardcoded list of allowed ops in > > bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets. > > - Set need_cmov based on BB live_out instead of REG_DEAD notes. > > - Fix preexisting issues and improve the code that sets > > read_comparison. > Do you need to avoid things like asms? Or are those rejected elsewhere? > From a diff standpoint it seems quite sensible, but boy just removing > all the guardrails makes me nervous. > > So assuming asms are rejected somewhere else and this has been through a > bootstrap and regression test, this is OK for the trunk.
The v5 series has again been bootstrapped and reg-tested today. Thanks, applied to master! --Philipp.
