Hi Oleg,
+/*
+This pass tries to optimize for example this:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst r1,r1
+ movtr1
+ tst r1,r1
+ bt/s.L5
+
+into something simpler:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst r1,r1
+ bf/s.L5
+
+Such sequences can be
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi Oleg,
+/*
+This pass tries to optimize for example this:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst r1,r1
+ movtr1
+ tst r1,r1
+ bt/s.L5
+
+into something simpler:
+ mov.l @(4,r4),r1
+ tst
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 07:44 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
Forgot to handle a case in function can_remove_cstore, thanks for
catching it. Fixed in the attached patch and also added test cases.
Retested as before without new failures.
Ok for trunk.
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
To be honest, I had some difficulty picking the name.
Maybe something like 'sh_tbit_combine' or 'sh_treg_combine' would be
better, or at least less confusing? Suggestions are highly appreciated.
'sh_treg_combine' or 'sh_combine_treg' sounds good to me.
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
Forgot to handle a case in function can_remove_cstore, thanks for
catching it. Fixed in the attached patch and also added test cases.
Retested as before without new failures.
Ok for trunk.
Yeah, right. I've changed 'ifcvt_sh' to 'sh_ifcvt'.
+
Hello,
Some of the things I've done in 4.8 to improve SH T bit handling turned
out to produce wrong code. The attached patch fixes that by introducing
an SH specific RTL pass.
Tested on rev 202876 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
Some of the things I've done in 4.8 to improve SH T bit handling turned
out to produce wrong code. The attached patch fixes that by introducing
an SH specific RTL pass.
Tested on rev 202876 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
