2014-06-25 20:12 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
> On 06/25/2014 06:35 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
>> So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
>
> We don't need a second peephole pass. Please try this.
>
> I think th
On 06/25/2014 06:35 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
> So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
We don't need a second peephole pass. Please try this.
I think there's room for cleanup here, depending on when we leave cf
2014-06-25 19:15 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
> On 06/25/14 10:02, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
>>>
>>> On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old
code.
>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't.
>>>
On 06/25/14 09:50, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
fall-thru path of the conditional and eliminate
On 06/25/14 10:02, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
fall-thr
2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
> On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
>
> It isn't.
>
>> It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
>> fall-thru path of the conditional a
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
> It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
> fall-thru path of the conditional and eliminate the conditional. Which, on the
> surface se
[Apologies about the duplicates to folks - resending to make this hit
the lists]
On 25/06/14 16:28, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/25/14 09:04, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
So why is the peephole not working in its current location?
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
that is what I read out o
On 06/25/14 09:04, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
So why is the peephole not working in its current location?
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
that is what I read out of dumps:
If peephole2 is executed early we see following pattern transformation:
[ ... ]
Ask an ARM maintainer if the
2014-06-25 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
> So why is the peephole not working in its current location?
>
> Jeff
Hi Jeff,
that is what I read out of dumps:
If peephole2 is executed early we see following pattern transformation:
(insn 12 11 13 2 (set (reg:CC_NOOV 100 cc)
(compare:CC_NOOV (ze
On 06/25/14 07:35, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
ChangeLog
2014-06-25 Kai Tietz
PR rtl-optimization/61608
* passes.def (peephole2): Readd peephole2 pass
before if-af
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
> So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
>
> ChangeLog
>
> 2014-06-25 Kai Tietz
>
> PR rtl-optimization/61608
> * passes.def (peephole2): Readd pee
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
ChangeLog
2014-06-25 Kai Tietz
PR rtl-optimization/61608
* passes.def (peephole2): Readd peephole2 pass
before if-after-reload pass.
Tested for arm*-none-*,
13 matches
Mail list logo
