Jeff Law writes:
> On 01/04/2018 02:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that
>> look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we
>> have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with
>> another R<-C move is unli
On 01/04/2018 02:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that
> look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we
> have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with
> another R<-C move is unlikely to be a good idea.
LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that
look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we
have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with
another R<-C move is unlikely to be a good idea.
However, this safeguard unnecessarily triggered in tests
