On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/20/2014 02:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> So I suggest following change of passes.def: >> >> Index: passes.def >> =================================================================== >> --- passes.def (Revision 211850) >> +++ passes.def (Arbeitskopie) >> @@ -384,7 +384,6 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> NEXT_PASS (pass_rtl_dse2); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_stack_adjustments); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_jump2); >> - NEXT_PASS (pass_peephole2); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_if_after_reload); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_regrename); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_cprop_hardreg); >> @@ -391,6 +390,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> NEXT_PASS (pass_fast_rtl_dce); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_duplicate_computed_gotos); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_reorder_blocks); >> + NEXT_PASS (pass_peephole2); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_branch_target_load_optimize2); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_leaf_regs); >> NEXT_PASS (pass_split_before_sched2); > > Looks good to me. I guess just keep an eye out for bug reports for other > ports.
Maybe put a comment here because it looks like a random placement to me which would be obvious to revert. peepholing before if-after-reload sounds good anyway. Did you test effect on code-generation of this change on other targets? Btw, there is now no DCE after peephole2? Is peephole2 expected to cleanup after itself? Richard. > > r~
