> I'm still a bit worried about the overlap between the expanded
> noce_convert_multiple_sets and cond_move_process_if_block (5/9).
> It seems like we're making noce_convert_multiple_set handle most of
> the conditional move cases that cond_move_process_if_block can handle.
> But like you say,
Robin Dapp writes:
>> Looks like a nice optimisation, but could we just test whether the
>> destination of a set isn't live on exit from the then block? I think
>> we could do that on the fly during the main noce_convert_multiple_sets
>> loop.
>
> I included this locally along with the rest of
> Looks like a nice optimisation, but could we just test whether the
> destination of a set isn't live on exit from the then block? I think
> we could do that on the fly during the main noce_convert_multiple_sets
> loop.
I included this locally along with the rest of the remarks. Any comments
on
Robin Dapp writes:
> A swap-style idiom like
> tmp = a
>a = b
>b = tmp
> would be transformed like
> tmp_tmp = cond ? a : tmp
> tmp_a = cond ? b : a
> tmp_b = cond ? tmp_tmp : b
> [...]
> including rewiring the first source operand to previous writes (e.g. tmp ->
> tmp_tmp).
>
>
A swap-style idiom like
tmp = a
a = b
b = tmp
would be transformed like
tmp_tmp = cond ? a : tmp
tmp_a = cond ? b : a
tmp_b = cond ? tmp_tmp : b
[...]
including rewiring the first source operand to previous writes (e.g. tmp ->
tmp_tmp).
The code would recognize this, though, and
