From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88278 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2015 08:52:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 88264 invoked by uid 89); 4 Mar 2015 08:52:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: service87.mimecast.com Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:52:15 +0000 Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by service87.mimecast.com; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:52:12 +0000 Received: from SHAWIN202 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:52:11 +0000 From: "Thomas Preud'homme" To: "'Steven Bosscher'" Cc: "GCC Patches" References: <000501d049d3$079385a0$16ba90e0$@arm.com> <000601d04a5c$a0c0f030$e242d090$@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <000601d04a5c$a0c0f030$e242d090$@arm.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH, GCC, stage1] Fallback to copy-prop if constant-prop not possible Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000001d05658$7d08bda0$771a38e0$@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 115030408521203201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 Ping? > From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme [SNIP] > > > > Likewise for the REG_P and ">=3D FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER" tests here > > (with > > the equivalent and IMHO preferable HARD_REGISTER_P test in > > find_avail_set()). >=20 > I'm not sure I follow you here. First, it seems to me that the equivalent > test is rather REG_P && !HARD_REGISTER_P since here it checks if it's > a pseudo register. >=20 > Then, do you mean the test can be simply removed because of the > REG_P && !HARD_REGISTER_P in hash_scan_set () called indirectly by > compute_hash_table () when called in one_cprop_pass () before any > cprop_insn ()? Or do you mean I should move the check in > find_avail_set ()? >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Thomas >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20