On 10/24/23 13:36, rep.dot....@gmail.com wrote:
As said, I don't see why the below was not cleaned up before the V1 submission.
Iff it breaks when manually CSEing, I'm curious why?
The function below looks identical in v12 of the patch.
Why didn't you use common subexpressions?
ba
Using CSE here breaks aarch64 regressions hence I have reverted it back
not to use CSE,
Just for my own education, can you please paste your patch perusing common
subexpressions and an assembly diff of the failing versus working aarch64
testcase, along how you configured that failing (cross-?)compiler and the
command-line of a typical testcase that broke when manually CSEing the function
below?
I was meaning to ask this before, but what exactly is the CSE issue,
manually or whatever.
-Vineet
