Re: RFC: combine simplification change: 2-for-2-with-lesser-cost

2005-12-20 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:34:30 +0100 > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I want it done there *only* because that's what it does for the > similar but even more complex cc0 code and because combine does > multi-insn simplifications in general. Never mind, I think I have a reasonab

Re: RFC: combine simplification change: 2-for-2-with-lesser-cost

2005-12-20 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:13:06 +0100 (CET) > From: Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You really have to wonder if cleaning up this jump is a job combine > should be doing. I want it done there *only* because that's what it does for the similar but even more complex cc0 code and because com

Re: RFC: combine simplification change: 2-for-2-with-lesser-cost

2005-12-20 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Dec 20, 2005 10:50 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The actual code should be simple; I just want to check that > there's consensus on the actual change before doing it. > > Thoughts? You really have to wonder if cleaning up this jump is a job combine should be doing.  I woul