public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
To: <rth@redhat.com>, <paulo@matos-sorge.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: Expanding instructions with condition codes inter-deps
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:21:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD030CE5DD38@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EA1E726.6090204@redhat.com>

>There are lots of parts of the compiler that don't optimize well when an insn has more than one output.  For the normal insn, just clobber the flags; don't include a second SET.

Yes, but... isn't the whole point of CC modeling that you can take advantage of the CC left around by an instruction?  Typically in machines with condition codes, you can eliminate test instructions (compare with zero) if the previous instruction has that variable as its output.  But if we're discouraged from writing insns with CC outputs as normal practice, and if the compiler doesn't handle such constructs well in optimization, what then?

Is cc0 any better here?  In cc0 style condition code handling, the condition codes output is implicit rather than explicitly stated.  Does that help, or hurt, or make no difference for the point you mentioned?

	paul

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-10-22  0:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-17 15:58 Paulo J. Matos
2011-10-17 17:23 ` Andrew Pinski
2011-10-18 13:44   ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-10-19  5:22 ` Richard Henderson
2011-10-19  5:45   ` Paul_Koning
     [not found]     ` <CAPOJ94M2XrqM_kG98v1dC1=K2fEkHpuNLSkZBrQyzJ9ncmaQXg@mail.gmail.com>
2011-10-21 20:57       ` Richard Henderson
2011-10-21 21:42     ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-10-22  0:13       ` Richard Henderson
2011-10-22  5:13         ` Peter Bigot
2011-10-22  5:21         ` Paul_Koning [this message]
2011-10-24  7:04           ` Richard Henderson
2011-10-24 12:12             ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-10-24 12:07         ` Paulo J. Matos
2011-10-20 12:46   ` Paulo J. Matos

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD030CE5DD38@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM \
    --to=paul_koning@dell.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=paulo@matos-sorge.com \
    --cc=rth@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).