RE: [RFC,PATCH] Using equivalences to help eliminate_regs_in_insn

[Matthew Fortune]

Vladimir N Makarov  writes:
> On 09/06/2016 11:22 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > There is an implementation that optimises a single set but not one for
> > a REG_EQUAL. Do you have any recollection of this code and do you
> > think there was a reason you didn't implement the REG_EQUAL case?
> > Either way any advice on my approach is welcome.
> Matt, sorry for delay with the answer.  I had a long vacation.
> 
> I did not write the code.  I mostly took it from the old register
> allocator practically without any changes.
> Looking at your prototype patch, I think you are doing an optimization
> which can be important for many targets.  Moreover, the optimization
> probably will be frequently applied for these targets.
> 
> I believe you should produce a final patch, test it well and submit it.
> 
> Thank you for finding the optimization opportunity and working on
> implementing it.

Thanks, I'll keep working on it and get a patch submitted. It may take a
little while but it will get done.

Matthew

Re: [RFC,PATCH] Using equivalences to help eliminate_regs_in_insn

[Vladimir N Makarov]

On 09/06/2016 11:22 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:

There is an implementation that optimises a single set but not one for
a REG_EQUAL. Do you have any recollection of this code and do you think
there was a reason you didn't implement the REG_EQUAL case? Either way
any advice on my approach is welcome.

Matt, sorry for delay with the answer.  I had a long vacation.

I did not write the code.  I mostly took it from the old register 
allocator practically without any changes.
Looking at your prototype patch, I think you are doing an optimization 
which can be important for many targets.  Moreover, the optimization 
probably will be frequently applied for these targets.


I believe you should produce a final patch, test it well and submit it.

Thank you for finding the optimization opportunity and working on 
implementing it.