> I very much disagree with this. I think my approach was possibly the > only viable one, and definitely the most sensible one for this target. > Not only is there nothing meaningful to be gained from separating cc > setters and users on m68k given that almost all instructions (including > moves) clobber the flags, it is not really an actively maintained target > and any more adventurous approach would have introduced many more > possibilities for error. Generating exactly the same code as before as > much as possible was the correct goal IMO.
Fair enough, but IMO the constraint that almost all instructions (including moves) clobber the flags is not sufficient (alone) to justify this approach, as it forces you to use an ad-hoc mechanism to eliminate redundant compares instead of the dedicated RTL pass, and may hinder scheduling in the case where it would be useful to schedule instructions, e.g. floating-point instructions, between the CC setters and the CC users. -- Eric Botcazou
