On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:31 PM yangyang (ET) <yangyang...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:29 AM yangyang (ET) <yangyang...@huawei.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This is a simple fix for pr95855. > > > > > > > > > > With this fix, pass_split_paths can recognize the > > > > > if-conversion > > > > opportunity of the testcase and doesn't duplicate the corresponding > > > > block. > > > > > > > > > > Added one testcase for this. Bootstrap and tested on both > > > > > aarch64 and > > > > x86 Linux platform, no new regression witnessed. > > > > > > > > > > Ok for trunk? > > > > > > > > Can you try using the num_stmts_in_pred[12] counts instead of using > > > > empty_block_p? > > > > > > It' ok to using num_stmts_in_pred[12] to judge whether the pred[12] is > > > empty since bb's immediate dominator can't meet the constraints > > > "single_pred_p (pred[12]) && single_pred (pred[12]) == pred[21]". > > > > > > > > > > > Your matching doesn't allow for FP constants like > > > > > > > > dmax[0] = d1[i] < 1.0 ? 1.0 : d1[i]; > > > > > > > > since FP constants are not shared. You likely want to use > > > > operand_equal_p to do the PHI argument comparison. > > > > > > That's right, after using operand_equal_p instead of == to do the PHI > > > argument Comparison, the mentioned case can be covered as well. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Richard. > > > > > > Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised our patch based on your > > suggestions. > > > > > > Bootstrap and tested on both aarch64 and x86 Linux platform. Does the v1 > > patch looks better? > > > > Yes. This variant is OK. > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > Thanks for reviewing this. Could you please help install it?
Installed. Please double-check your ChangeLog with gcc-verify, it had a typo in the testcase filename. Richard. > Yang Yang
