From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28892 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2015 09:40:15 -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 28861 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2015 09:40:13 -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; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:40:12 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by service87.mimecast.com; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:40:09 +0000 Received: from SHAWIN202 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:40:07 +0000 From: "Thomas Preud'homme" To: "'Alan Modra'" , "Jeff Law" Cc: "'Andrew Pinski'" , "Eric Botcazou" , "GCC Patches" References: <00f001d044d4$23f37e20$6bda7a60$@arm.com> <00f201d044d8$0131ccd0$03956670$@arm.com> <54DAF0CD.9030701@redhat.com> <20150212083449.GM4274@bubble.grove.modra.org> In-Reply-To: <20150212083449.GM4274@bubble.grove.modra.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2, combine] Try REG_EQUAL for nonzero_bits Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <00f601d04771$052fce40$0f8f6ac0$@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 115021309400905401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00834.txt.bz2 > From: Alan Modra [mailto:amodra@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:35 PM > > > > > >Actually this bit seems unnecessary as there is already some logic in > > >nonzero_bits1 for the CONST_INT case. So I guess the code can be > > >removed and the comment be moved there at the very least but > > >I'd prefer people from one of the affected target to test it. >=20 > I can tell you that the following doesn't trigger on an > --enable-targets=3Dall,go powerpc64-linux bootstrap. (Ada not built due > to lack of gnat on the machine I used.) So for powerpc it looks like > the combine SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND code can disappear. > The > rtlanal.c occurrence *is* executed. So I build a lm32-elf cross-compiler with and without the code guarded by this macro (both in combine.c and rtlanal.c) and then compiled as much as I could of gcc (make -I -k) and compared the object files. diff tells me that there is no difference whatsoever. If you want me to do tests on other programs or for other target please let me know. Best regards, Thomas