On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 11:41:30PM +0000, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote: > +(define_peephole2 > + [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "arm_general_register_operand" "") > + (match_operand:SI 1 "arm_general_register_operand" "")) > + (set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM) > + (compare:CC (match_dup 0) (const_int 0)))] > + "TARGET_ARM" > + [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM) (compare:CC (match_dup 1) (const_int > 0))) > + (set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1))])] > + "" > +)
Hi Fredrik, Do you have a testcase for this? I wonder if it would be better handled during combine, and what that then tried; or perhaps these opportunities are created later, making a peephole a more attractive solution. Segher
