Ping for Jeff or another global maintainer to review the target agnostic
bits of this, that's:
loop-doloop.cc
df-core.{c,h}
I do have a nitpick myself that I missed last time around:
/* We expect the condition to be of the form (reg != 0) */
cond = XEXP (SET_SRC (cmp), 0);
- if (GET_CODE (cond) != NE || XEXP (cond, 1) != const0_rtx)
+ if ((GET_CODE (cond) != NE && GET_CODE (cond) != GE)
+ || XEXP (cond, 1) != const0_rtx)
return 0;
}
Could do with updating the comment to reflect allowing >= now. But happy
for you to change this once approved by a maintainer.
Kind regards,
Andre
On 11/10/2023 12:34, Stamatis Markianos-Wright wrote:
Hi all,
On 28/09/2023 13:51, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Stam,
The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h
and df-core.cc changes.
Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look?
Just thought I'd do a follow-up "ping" on this :)
Thanks,
Kyrill
FWIW the changes LGTM, if we don't want these in df-core we can always
implement the extra utility locally. It's really just a helper
function to check if df_bb_regno_first_def_find and
df_bb_regno_last_def_find yield the same result, meaning we only have
a single definition.
Kind regards,
Andre
Thanks,
Stam
