On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, the following testcase started using recently
> BIT_FIELD_REFs instead of MEM_REFs and thus the bswap pass, while it
> properly determines the very long sequence of stmts is a nop transformation,
> throws that away and do
On 14/07/17 09:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
+ else if (!bswap)
+{
Would it make sense to add an assert right here checking that this is a
cmpnop operation?
The earlier bswap_replace code to handle n->base_addr && !bswap do
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:45:39AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > + else if (!bswap)
> > +{
>
> Would it make sense to add an assert right here checking that this is a
> cmpnop operation?
The earlier bswap_replace code to handle n->base_addr && !bswap doesn't
have anything like that eit
Hi Jakub,
On 13/07/17 21:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, the following testcase started using recently
BIT_FIELD_REFs instead of MEM_REFs and thus the bswap pass, while it
properly determines the very long sequence of stmts is a nop transformation,
throws that away and does
