Hi Richard,
在 2024/6/17 17:04, Richard Sandiford 写道:
> I don't think we should keep the single_set condition after this change.
> insn_cost can handle all instructions.
Just tested with removing single_set condition. It causes some regressions.
If the new_rtl is a debug insn, it still can do the replacement as it can
be recog and it's not a single_set rtl. After removing single_set condition,
the "ok" (recog) will be reset to false in the "if" block as the cost of
debug insn is unknown. So the replacement won't be done.
bool ok = recog (attempt, use_change);
if (ok && !prop.changed_mem_p () && !use_insn->is_asm ())
{
bool strict_p = !prop.likely_profitable_p ();
if (!change_is_worthwhile (use_change, strict_p))
{
if (dump_file)
fprintf (dump_file, "change not profitable");
ok = false;
}
}
if (!ok)
{
/* The pattern didn't match, but if all uses of SRC folded to
constants, we can add a REG_EQUAL note for the result, if there
isn't one already. */
if (!prop.folded_to_constants_p ())
Looking forwarding to your advice.
Thanks
Gui Haochen
