On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson schrieb:
> > A glance at AVR makes me think this should already be handled by
> > the NOTICE_UPDATE_CC machinery. Any analysis why this doesn't
> > happen? With the same test-case (at -Os) I don't see redundant
> > compares for cri
Hans-Peter Nilsson schrieb:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This is an optimization in machine dependent reorg to
remove redundant comparisons like in
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 == 0)
goto L1
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 > 0)
goto L2
The second compar
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> This is an optimization in machine dependent reorg to
> remove redundant comparisons like in
>
>cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
>if (cc0 == 0)
> goto L1
>
>cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
>if (cc0 > 0)
> goto L2
>
> The second comparison
2011/8/11 Georg-Johann Lay :
> This is an optimization in machine dependent reorg to
> remove redundant comparisons like in
>
> cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
> if (cc0 == 0)
> goto L1
>
> cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
> if (cc0 > 0)
> goto L2
>
> The second comparison is redundant an can be r
This is an optimization in machine dependent reorg to
remove redundant comparisons like in
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 == 0)
goto L1
cc0 = compare (Reg, Num)
if (cc0 > 0)
goto L2
The second comparison is redundant an can be removed.
Code like this can be seen in binary
