On 19/05/2015 14:23, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Martin Frb wrote on Tue, 19 May 2015:
005EACF0 833A00 cmp dword ptr [edx],$00
005EACF3 0F95C0 setnz al
005EACF6 84C0 test al,al
005EACF8 7509 jnz +$09
Is that something that should be optimized away?
I'm sure you can find 100's of examples like that when using inline.
So yes, it's obviously a missed optimisation, but an x86 peephole
optimisation to remove those two instructions is "dweilen met de kraan
open" (mopping up water while leaving the tap running), and (as far as
I'm concerned) a waste of time since exactly the same happens on all
architectures as well (except for possibly those without flags).
I knew why I ask for optimization in general, and not at any specific
place :)
I was more interested if (with any disregard to priority or importance)
1) it is a known issue
2) regarded as issue at all
Appears to be.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
