On 17/05/12 17:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
My question is, why are you generating compares in two different
modes early, before compare-elim runs? If you hadn't done that,
your redundant compare would already be eliminated.
I just looked at the rx code and it seems to be doing something sim
On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:08:26 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> My question is, why are you generating compares in two different modes
> early, before compare-elim runs? If you hadn't done that, your
> redundant compare would already be eliminated.
>
Good question. I tried to follow the example s
On 05/15/12 06:00, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> The RTL for the first two comparisons at compare-elim is:
> (insn 51 3 52 2 (set (reg:CC_NZ 13 CC)
> (compare:CC_NZ (reg:QI 0 AH [orig:27 a ] [27])
> (const_int 0 [0]))) b651.c:1 63 {*tstqi}
> (nil))
>
> (jump_insn 52 51 34 2 (set
