Hi Andrew, Andrew Pinski <andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com> writes: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Andrew Pinski > <andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Richard Sandiford >> <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Andrew Pinski <andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com> writes: >>>> Right now we only produce ins when a zero_extract is used on the >>>> right hand side. We can do better by adding some patterns which >>>> combine for the ins instruction. This patch adds those patterns and a >>>> testcase which shows a simple example where the code is improved. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. Had you thought about trying to >>> teach combine.c about this instead? It doesn't look like any of the >>> patterns are really providing more information about the underlying >>> instruction. >> >> combine.c has some code to do this already if one of the src register >> is the same as the dest register; that is what make_field_assignment >> does. Quickly looking at the code, the problem I doing it in >> make_field_assignment is there is no way to return that you need a >> copy of the value first unless I am missing something obvious. Now I >> agree we should be optimize this in combine rather than these manual >> patterns. > > I now have a patch which implements this in combine which allows the > backend not need to change. I generate a SEQUENCE which then > try_combine splits like we do for PARALLEL but keeping it in the > correct order and allowing for the case where we are combing two > instructions into two instructions. > I hope to be able to post it later on Saturday.
Just wondering, what's the status of this? Was worried that you might have posted it and I'd missed it. Richard
