From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-324494-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15745 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2012 21:17:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 15736 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2012 21:17:31 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:17:17 +0000
Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so616767wgb.8        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.231.208 with SMTP id l58mr8029982weq.138.1344979036513; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.229.136 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+=Sn1koWriUxFuafJDZ9STiEO-GP7eFdguHPhXPnwONajAFmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1344978713.31850.6.camel@gnopaine>	<CA+=Sn1koWriUxFuafJDZ9STiEO-GP7eFdguHPhXPnwONajAFmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:17:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1k=phAEP_Ky5b2i7GTwXe8z8bHJbnPdWPvvMY7t5Zu1jA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR54240
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
To: "William J. Schmidt" <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, bergner@vnet.ibm.com, rguenther@suse.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00930.txt.bz2

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM, William J. Schmidt
> <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Replace the once vacuously true, and now vacuously false, test for
>> existence of a conditional move instruction for a given mode, with one
>> that actually checks what it's supposed to.  Add a test case so we don't
>> miss such things in future.
>>
>> The test is powerpc-specific.  It would be good to have an i386 version
>> of the test as well, if someone can help with that.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new
>> regressions.  Ok for trunk?
>
> Here is one which can go into gcc.target/mips :
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-phiopt-details" } */

Sorry the dg-options should be:
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-phiopt-details isa>=4" } */

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> typedef struct s {
>   int v;
>   int b;
>   struct s *l;
>   struct s *r;
> } S;
>
>
> int foo(S *s)
> {
>   S *this;
>   S *next;
>
>   this = s;
>   if (this->b)
>     next = this->l;
>   else
>     next = this->r;
>
>   return next->v;
> }
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "Hoisting adjacent loads" "phiopt1" } } */
> /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "phiopt1" } } */