http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-05-16
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I'm worried if this isn't too expensive, as there are just 3 dead_or_set_p
> uses in define_split patterns in the compiler apparently, one in i386.md (the
> one hitting in this and the other PR), guarded with reload_completed, and two
> for movdi splitters in s390.md (not guarded by that). If the s390.md
> splitters could be guarded by reload_completed, we could at least avoid the
> df_analyze in split1 pass.
I agree that calling DF for just 3 cases sounds a bit overkill. Is the i386.md
splitter really necessary or could we use a peephole2 instead?
