From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stefan@franke.ms>
Received: from eggs1p.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AFB386F02B
 for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:20:44 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 82AFB386F02B
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=franke.ms
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=stefan@franke.ms
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs1p.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <stefan@franke.ms>) id 1jQTXf-0004yW-Fp
 for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:20:44 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_FAIL,
 SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from serveronline.org ([78.46.86.77]:52263 helo=franke.ms)
 by eggs1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <stefan@franke.ms>) id 1jQTXe-0004i4-VS
 for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:20:43 -0400
Received: from ZETRA (238.red-88-18-249.staticip.rima-tde.net [88.18.249.238])
 by serveronline.org (BEJY V1.6.12-SNAPSHOT (c) 2000-2019 by
 BebboSoft, Stefan "Bebbo" Franke, all rights reserved)
 with SMTP id 171971aa1ba86fd6e4230fb944c from stefan@franke.ms
 for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:20:37 +0100
From: "Stefan Franke" <stefan@franke.ms>
To: <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Additional peephole pass(es)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:20:35 +0200
Message-ID: <04d901d616fd$55668f50$0033adf0$@franke.ms>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdYW/H12vveRLUoqQHq6eJErJ/7iuw==
Content-Language: de
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=78.46.86.77; envelope-from=stefan@franke.ms;
 helo=franke.ms
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs1p.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/20
 06:20:37
X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS   = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy]
X-Received-From: 78.46.86.77
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:20:45 -0000

Hi there,

 

is there a chance that a patch would be accepted if it adds (an) additional
peephole pass(es)?

 

I'm not content with the capabilities of the combine pass and a convenient
way would be to insert an additional pass in front/after the combine pass.
It's way easier to maintain than the spaghetti code in combine and ss long
there is nothing defined in the cpu's md file, the pass gets skipped, so the
overhead for non-users is almost non existent.

 

Right now I'm applying the same set as in the final peephole run, but I
would add a separate keyword per pass, e.g. peephole_precombine, etc. p.p.

 

Your thoughts?

 

/cheers Stefan