On 4/28/25 1:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Here is the incremental patch I was talking about.
For noop sets, we don't need to test much, they can go to i2
unless that would violate i3 JUMP condition.
With this the try_combine on th
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is the incremental patch I was talking about.
> For noop sets, we don't need to test much, they can go to i2
> unless that would violate i3 JUMP condition.
>
> With this the try_combine on the pr119291.c testcase doesn't fail,
>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is the incremental patch I was talking about.
> For noop sets, we don't need to test much, they can go to i2
> unless that would violate i3 JUMP condition.
>
> With this the try_combine on the pr119291.c testcase doesn't fail,
>
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 06:51:21PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > 2025-03-28 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * combine.cc (try_combine): Sets which satisfy set_noop_p can go
> > to i2 unless i3 is a jump and the other set is not.
> Shouldn't this wait for gcc-16? Or can you make a reasonable case th
On 3/28/25 5:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Here is the incremental patch I was talking about.
For noop sets, we don't need to test much, they can go to i2
unless that would violate i3 JUMP condition.
With this the try_combine on the pr119291.c testcase doesn't fail,
but succeeds and we get
