Re: RFA: a x86 test modification

2018-11-29 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:03 AM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:43 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 11/28/18 2:47 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > The patch I committed today recently for > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207 > > > > > > creates a new

Re: RFA: a x86 test modification

2018-11-28 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:43 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > On 11/28/18 2:47 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > The patch I committed today recently for > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207 > > > > creates a new regression for pr34256.c. 2 moves is expected but gcc > > with the pa

Re: RFA: a x86 test modification

2018-11-28 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/28/18 2:47 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >   The patch I committed today recently for > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207 > >   creates a new regression for pr34256.c.  2 moves is expected but gcc > with the patch generates 3 moves.  I think now RA generates the right code.

RFA: a x86 test modification

2018-11-28 Thread Vladimir Makarov
  The patch I committed today recently for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207   creates a new regression for pr34256.c.  2 moves is expected but gcc with the patch generates 3 moves.  I think now RA generates the right code. We have the following code before RA (insn 7 6 13 2