Re: Tighten LRA cycling check

Jeff Law writes: > On 01/04/2018 02:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that >> look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we >> have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with >> another

Re: Tighten LRA cycling check

On 01/04/2018 02:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that > look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we > have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with > another R<-C move is unlikely to be a good idea.

Tighten LRA cycling check

LRA has code to try to prevent cycling, by avoiding reloads that look too similar to the instruction being reloaded. E.g. if we have a R<-C move for some constant C, reloading the source with another R<-C move is unlikely to be a good idea. However, this safeguard unnecessarily triggered in