From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-393935-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1176 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2015 11:57:47 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 1161 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2015 11:57:47 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f180.google.com
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f180.google.com) (209.85.217.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:57:46 +0000
Received: by lbcmq2 with SMTP id mq2so6236304lbc.0        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.163.229 with SMTP id yl5mr83013921lbb.60.1427111862842; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.83.130 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <000201d06558$acd8a130$0689e390$@arm.com>
References: <000501d049d3$079385a0$16ba90e0$@arm.com> <CABu31nMdEDzr_mPvZvN=zuLMmGRDBP3wDb-6FLX2xUz13Qn2fw@mail.gmail.com> <000601d04a5c$a0c0f030$e242d090$@arm.com> <CABu31nO-FyF_T3KCv1PW-ndAotCKdxpjzROm7kjTEb5p2DEt3A@mail.gmail.com> <000001d062e8$ece63930$c6b2ab90$@arm.com> <000101d062f8$68a35350$39e9f9f0$@arm.com> <CABu31nMq-md5ZRAovEzcOM8tPYH8GJZn-pb6tQTPJcHA=F=zjg@mail.gmail.com> <000201d06558$acd8a130$0689e390$@arm.com>
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:57:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CABu31nOgb7ixQ71nkwJRy=6XeUjQb7YohNe1CzwaJtnzmfizPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, GCC, stage1] Fallback to copy-prop if constant-prop not possible
To: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01175.txt.bz2

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> What about the cprop_reg_p that needs to be negated? Did I miss something
> that makes it ok?

You didn't miss anything.  I sent the wrong patch. The one I tested on
ppc64 also has the condition reversed:

@@ -1328,9 +1329,8 @@ implicit_set_cond_p (const_rtx cond)
   if (GET_CODE (cond) != EQ && GET_CODE (cond) != NE)
     return false;

-  /* The first operand of COND must be a pseudo-reg.  */
-  if (! REG_P (XEXP (cond, 0))
-      || HARD_REGISTER_P (XEXP (cond, 0)))
+  /* The first operand of COND must be a register we can propagate.  */
+  if (! cprop_reg_p (XEXP (cond, 0)))
     return false;

   /* The second operand of COND must be a suitable constant.  */