From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1181 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2012 22:13:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 1171 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2012 22:13:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:13:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q77MDUvG011173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:13:30 -0400 Received: from anchor.twiddle.home (vpn-10-62.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.10.62]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q77MDTEi019040; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:13:30 -0400 Message-ID: <50219309.5000403@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:13:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: s390: Avoid CAS boolean output inefficiency References: <201208071702.q77H2DFl025511@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201208071702.q77H2DFl025511@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 On 08/07/2012 10:02 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > The following patch changes the builtin expander to pass a MEM oldval > as-is to the back-end expander, so that the back-end can move the > store to before the CC operation. With that patch I'm also seeing > all the IPMs disappear. ... > What do you think about this solution? It has the advantage that > we still get the same xor code if we actually do need the ipm ... I'm ok with that patch. r~