On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:07:26AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi Wilco,
>
> >> You should only return true if there is a match, not if there is
> >> not a match.
>
> Done.
>
> Bootstrapped and Regression tested on AArch64 and X86_64.
> Please review the patch and let us know if its oka
Hi,
Please consider this as a personal reminder to review the patch
at following link and let me know your comments on the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01333.html
Thanks,
Naveen
Hi Wilco,
>> You should only return true if there is a match, not if there is
>> not a match.
Done.
Bootstrapped and Regression tested on AArch64 and X86_64.
Please review the patch and let us know if its okay?
Thanks,
Naveen
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-fusion-pairs.d
Hi Naveen,
This version has the same issue of claiming that all instructions should
be fused except for the cases that can be fused. You should only return
true if there is a match, not if there is not a match.
Cheers,
Wilco
Hi Wilco,
>> Same comment for this part, we want to return true if we match:
Thanks for pointing out about the confusion.
>> Note writing these complex conditions using positive logic makes them much
>> more readable - if you have to negate use !(X && Y && Z) rather than
>> !X || !Y || !Z.
Modi
Hi Naveen,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01369.html
Same comment for this part, we want to return true if we match:
+ if (SET_DEST (curr_set) != (pc_rtx)
+ || GET_CODE (SET_SRC (curr_set)) != IF_THEN_ELSE
+ || ! REG_P (XEXP (XEXP (SET_SRC (curr_set), 0), 0)
Hi,
Please consider this as a personal reminder to review the patch
at following link and let me know your comments on the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01369.html
Thanks,
Naveen
