On Wed, 13 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Thank you! This looks fine. Please add also the testcase that should break if
> the new test was wrong andosmeone fixed postreload to allow use of the same
> register
> this check will prevent wrong code?
I'm checking in a patch with the following addit
> On Mon, 11 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Yes, to make my original email clear, I think we are safe to remove
> > peep2_reg_dead_p.
> >
> > I would however introduce a check that the call target is not also among
> > parameters of the function. In this case the peephole would remove the load
>
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Yes, to make my original email clear, I think we are safe to remove
> peep2_reg_dead_p.
>
> I would however introduce a check that the call target is not also among
> parameters of the function. In this case the peephole would remove the load
> and make th
> On 05/11/2015 01:46 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>>On Sun, 10 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>>
> >On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump
> >into
> >memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in
On 05/11/2015 01:46 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump into
memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow combining
w
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> > > On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump
>> > > into
>> > > memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow
>> > > combining
>> > > when t
> On Sun, 10 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump
> > > into
> > > memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow
> > > combining
> > > when the jump target is loaded into %eax, and the called function
On Sun, 10 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump
> > into
> > memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow
> > combining
> > when the jump target is loaded into %eax, and the called function returns a
> >
> On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump into
> memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow combining
> when the jump target is loaded into %eax, and the called function returns a
> value (also in %eax, so it's not dead after the call). Fi
On i386, peepholes that transform memory load and register-indirect jump into
memory-indirect jump are overly restrictive in that they don't allow combining
when the jump target is loaded into %eax, and the called function returns a
value (also in %eax, so it's not dead after the call). Fix this b
10 matches
Mail list logo
