On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:32 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:21:33AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > OK. One might ask if there's a way to share a bit of code here since > > > there's a fair amount of duplication. But I'll trust that you've > > > pondered that and decided it wasn't really worth the effort. > > > > I think that Vladimir n is looking into the PR. So, if RA can avoid > > register copies by itself, then these extra peepholes won't be needed. > > Let's ask Vladimir for his opinion. > > While Vlad's patch improved the code generation on the testcase, it was > orthogonal to the two peephole2 patches: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01441.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01442.html > as can be seen even from that Vlad didn't have to adjust the counts in the > pr49095.c testcase, while both of those patches do that (both together down > to zero RMW sequences). > > Are you ok with those patches, or do you have other suggestions?
Yes, they are OK. Thanks, Uros.
