Hi Jeff, Indeed, that sounds like a good idea. I will make this separate and send it after the required testing. I'll see what can be done about a testcase.
Best, Manolis On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:20 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/30/23 04:13, Manolis Tsamis wrote: > > The existing implementation of need_cmov_or_rewire and > > noce_convert_multiple_sets_1 assumes that sets are either REG or SUBREG. > > This commit enchances them so they can handle/rewire arbitrary set > > statements. > > > > To do that a new helper struct noce_multiple_sets_info is introduced which > > is > > used by noce_convert_multiple_sets and its helper functions. This results in > > cleaner function signatures, improved efficientcy (a number of vecs and hash > > set/map are replaced with a single vec of struct) and simplicity. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * ifcvt.cc (need_cmov_or_rewire): Renamed > > init_noce_multiple_sets_info. > > (init_noce_multiple_sets_info): Initialize noce_multiple_sets_info. > > (noce_convert_multiple_sets_1): Use noce_multiple_sets_info and handle > > rewiring of multiple registers. > > (noce_convert_multiple_sets): Updated to use noce_multiple_sets_info. > > * ifcvt.h (struct noce_multiple_sets_info): Introduce new struct > > noce_multiple_sets_info to store info for noce_convert_multiple_sets. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/ifcvt_multiple_sets_rewire.c: New test. > So this seems like (in theory) it could move forward independently. The > handling of arbitrary statements code wouldn't be exercised yet, but > that's OK IMHO as I don't think anyone is fundamentally against trying > to handle additional kinds of statements. > > So my suggestion would be to bootstrap & regression test this > independently. AFAICT this should have no functional change if it were > to go in on its own. Note the testsuite entry might not be applicable > if this were to go in on its own and would need to roll into another > patch in the series. > > > Jeff
