Aw, okay. Well, post peephole is still a separate stage, since that prevents a lot of other optimisations (e.g. changing mov 0,%reg into xor %reg,%reg).
I'll start breaking it up into smaller chunks. Gareth aka. Kit On Sat 01/12/18 19:54 , Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org sent: Am 01.12.2018 um 17:28 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: > Thanks Bart, > > I managed to get it to build after reinstalling the FPC compiler 3.0.4 - it seems it was getting confused between two > different versions on my virtual machine - but after all that it does look like a bug in my new code. I've managed to > get it to compile from a clean build and with a couple of modified files that don't do anything drastic, so now I'll try > to isolate the issue and update my patch file. An overhauled peephole optimizer is no use if it breaks Linux! I had a quick look at the patch and I strongly recommend to split it in multiple patches which can be reviewed more easily. This allows also to detect easier which change breaks things and also to measure which change increases speed and which change is not needed. In general, I am not happy with the merge of the four passes as it makes maintenance much harder. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org [1] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel [2]">http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel Links: ------ [1] mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org [2] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
