Oleg Endo wrote:
> To be honest, I had some difficulty picking the name.
> Maybe something like 'sh_tbit_combine' or 'sh_treg_combine' would be
> better, or at least less confusing? Suggestions are highly appreciated.
'sh_treg_combine' or 'sh_combine_treg' sounds good to me.
Regards,
ka
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 07:44 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Forgot to handle a case in function can_remove_cstore, thanks for
> > catching it. Fixed in the attached patch and also added test cases.
> > Retested as before without new failures.
>
> Ok for trunk.
>
> > Yeah, right.
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> +/*
> +This pass tries to optimize for example this:
> + mov.l @(4,r4),r1
> + tst r1,r1
> + movtr1
> + tst r1,r1
> + bt/s.L5
> +
> +into something simpler:
> + mov.l @(4,r4),r1
> +
Hi Oleg,
+/*
+This pass tries to optimize for example this:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst r1,r1
+ movtr1
+ tst r1,r1
+ bt/s.L5
+
+into something simpler:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst r1,r1
+ bf/s.L5
+
+Such sequences can be identif
Oleg Endo wrote:
> Forgot to handle a case in function can_remove_cstore, thanks for
> catching it. Fixed in the attached patch and also added test cases.
> Retested as before without new failures.
Ok for trunk.
> Yeah, right. I've changed 'ifcvt_sh' to 'sh_ifcvt'.
>+ register_pass (make_pas
Oleg Endo wrote:
> Some of the things I've done in 4.8 to improve SH T bit handling turned
> out to produce wrong code. The attached patch fixes that by introducing
> an SH specific RTL pass.
>
> Tested on rev 202876 with
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
> \{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m
Hello,
Some of the things I've done in 4.8 to improve SH T bit handling turned
out to produce wrong code. The attached patch fixes that by introducing
an SH specific RTL pass.
Tested on rev 202876 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-
