On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:58:02PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > - cc0 does a good job and did always a good job in the past. In the > > years I contributed to avr, there hasn't been a single cc0 flaw (all the > > few, minor cc0-related issues were avr BE issues).
cc0 does not do a good job at all for many targets. And for the targets where it has acceptable results, the more modern representation works better. > cc0 does inhibit RTL optimizations because of the implementation constraints > it imposes, most notably the non-separation of CC setters and users. Yes. And some 40 .c files need specific handling of CC0, separately of everything else. It's a maintenance problem (and in many cases we say "cc0? Just give up." btw). I believe we have now spent more than twenty years transitioning away from cc0 (history is a bit hard to search that far away). Maybe this is enough. Segher
