Message-
> >> > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
> >> > [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org]
> >> On
> >> > Behalf Of Bin Cheng
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:00 PM
> >> > To: 'Richard Sandiford'
&g
, 2012 2:36 PM
>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; Richard Earnshaw; 'Richard Sandiford'
>> Subject: RE: [PING Updated]: [PATCH GCC/ARM] Fix problem that
> hardreg_cprop
>> opportunities are missed on thumb1
>>
>> Ping.
>>
&
d'
> Subject: RE: [PING Updated]: [PATCH GCC/ARM] Fix problem that
hardreg_cprop
> opportunities are missed on thumb1
>
> Ping.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
> > [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org]
> On
>
es@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Updated]: [PATCH GCC/ARM] Fix problem that hardreg_cprop
> opportunities are missed on thumb1
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 6:0
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 6:09 AM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; 'Eric Botcazou'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Ping: [PATCH GCC/ARM] Fi
On 06/09/12 09:33, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it may be feasible to rewrite the instruction in machine reorg
>>> pass, rather than peephole2. But that need bigger change in ARM back
> end.
>>> Hi Ramana, Richard, what's your opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Thanks very much.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I side with Ri
> >
> > Yes, it may be feasible to rewrite the instruction in machine reorg
> > pass, rather than peephole2. But that need bigger change in ARM back
end.
> > Hi Ramana, Richard, what's your opinion on this?
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
> >
>
> I side with Richard on this one. The mid-end should
On 06/09/12 06:41, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks very much for comments.
>
>>> Ping?
>>>
>>> Hi Ramana, could you help me review this patch?
>>> Hi Eric, Richard, could you help me review the change in regcprop.c?
>>
>> Subtraction of zero isn't canonical rtl though. Passes after peeph
Hi Richard,
Thanks very much for comments.
> > Ping?
> >
> > Hi Ramana, could you help me review this patch?
> > Hi Eric, Richard, could you help me review the change in regcprop.c?
>
> Subtraction of zero isn't canonical rtl though. Passes after peephole2
would
> be well within their rights to
"Bin Cheng" writes:
>> Hi,
>> For thumb1, arm-gcc rewrites move insn into subtract of ZERO in peephole2
> pass
>> intentionally, then executes
>> pass_if_after_reload/pass_regrename/pass_cprop_hardreg sequentially.
>>
>> In this scenario, copy propagation opportunities are missed because:
>> 1.
> Hi,
> For thumb1, arm-gcc rewrites move insn into subtract of ZERO in peephole2
pass
> intentionally, then executes
> pass_if_after_reload/pass_regrename/pass_cprop_hardreg sequentially.
>
> In this scenario, copy propagation opportunities are missed because:
> 1. the move insns are re-written
Hi,
For thumb1, arm-gcc rewrites move insn into subtract of ZERO in peephole2
pass intentionally, then executes
pass_if_after_reload/pass_regrename/pass_cprop_hardreg sequentially.
In this scenario, copy propagation opportunities are missed because:
1. the move insns are re-written.
2. pass_cp
12 matches
Mail list logo
