On 12/04/2014 05:16 PM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> +static rtx
> +cc_in_cond (rtx cond)
> +{
> + if ((HAVE_cbranchcc4) && cond
Silly parens around the HAVE_cbranchcc4.
> + && (GET_MODE_CLASS (GET_MODE (XEXP (cond, 0))) == MODE_CC))
More silly parens around the ==.
> + /* Skip it if the instruction to be moved might clobber CC. */
> + cc = cc_in_cond (cond);
> + if (cc)
> + if (set_of (cc, insn_a)
> + || (insn_b && set_of (XEXP (cond, 0), insn_b)))
> + return FALSE;
Don't nest if's when an && will do; if the && won't do, always use braces.
It looks like the insn_b test can be simpler, since the non-null return from
cc_in_cond is always XEXP (cond, 0).
So:
if (cc
&& (set_of (cc, insn_a)
|| (insn_b && set_of (cc, insn_b)))
return FALSE;
Ok with those changes.
r~
