From patchwork Mon Apr 9 16:11:13 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Eric Botcazou X-Patchwork-Id: 151446 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2993B7023 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:12:51 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1334592773; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Mailing-List: Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=DwHD6fSCSya1dN5nEZyX8XSMI7o=; b=k+E122HIjCgPT4kP6XpxUB1fXJzjf5mOuzx4eRQxcBzQEcNnSyNX+p+R5T4AuH /NYjoUVUB7HnybKtNTWWzt+USSNa38au7gWA1C/1o/ZPD5B1ITs9v2aztsz5iVgc gnh3CqpeLH6rRton8tOuB25oKzHoYGcFh5uQEUu/md2lg= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=VmfmlZuoFxw3NAx2JmSSgq7pYP6ZBVtuwFvOHhZ6VCqh1TOhZL/nR4pskSH9qA 34YrpTsfEPcZhBR7YZSzTYXTbRs34aSsPIfSb+vFvqjkBgmnGFAaSfbI4ZGrpU29 si6o55sRXOnL0tntBzczvGskfTs307d8CwBtkQo7YnpaU=; Received: (qmail 28297 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2012 16:12:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 28277 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2012 16:12:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_THREADED, TW_CF, TW_DD, TW_OV, TW_VZ, TW_ZB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:12:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB03290021; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PaDL5ClWYPec; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE8129000A; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:12:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Guenther Subject: Re: [RFC] Unconditionally clean up CFG before emitting prologue Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:11:13 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <201204091155.26101.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201204091811.14114.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Isn't the gimple cfg-cleanup we run post optimization (right before > expansion) not enough? Or the cfg-cleanup we perform right after expansion > now? At least if the branches are really caused by the gimplification > process I would expect things to be cleaned up at this point, no? At least the patch has a non-null (albeit minor) effect, which pertains mainly to jump threading (typical diff attached, Ada code at -O0 on x86-64). @@ -648,7 +648,6 @@ jmp .L70 .L206: nop -.L71: leaq -768(%rbp), %rax addq $448, %rax movq %rax, %rdi @@ -1107,7 +1106,6 @@ .LEHE34: cmpl $1, %ebx jne .L197 -.L93: movq 16(%rbp), %rax movzbl 186(%rax), %eax testb %al, %al @@ -1398,7 +1396,6 @@ call prime__worlds_secondary_greeks__compute_secondary_greeks__B68b___finalizer.3706 cmpl $1, %ebx jne .L198 -.L112: cmpb $0, -3925(%rbp) je .L113 movq 16(%rbp), %rax @@ -1672,14 +1669,14 @@ .L204: movq -4000(%rbp), %rax movq -4008(%rbp), %rdx - jmp .L151 + jmp .L156 .L186: movq %rax, %rcx movq %rdx, %rax cmpq $6, %rax je .L154 movq %rcx, %rax - jmp .L151 + jmp .L156 .L154: movq %rcx, -96(%rbp) movq -96(%rbp), %rax @@ -1712,7 +1709,6 @@ je .L67 jmp .L204 .L185: -.L151: jmp .L156 .L191: movq %rax, -4024(%rbp) @@ -1773,9 +1769,8 @@ .L197: movq -4016(%rbp), %rax movq -4032(%rbp), %rdx - jmp .L166 + jmp .L156 .L192: -.L166: jmp .L156 .L193: movq %rax, -4048(%rbp) @@ -1838,9 +1833,8 @@ jmp .L70 .L117: movq %r15, %rax - jmp .L173 + jmp .L174 .L196: -.L173: jmp .L174 .L175: .L174: @@ -2510,7 +2504,6 @@ jmp .L253 .L286: nop -.L254: movq 24(%rbp), %rax movzbl 101(%rax), %eax testb %al, %al @@ -2578,12 +2571,12 @@ .L285: movq %r14, %rax movq %r15, %rdx - jmp .L264 + jmp .L269 .L278: movq %rdx, %rcx cmpq $2, %rcx je .L267 - jmp .L264 + jmp .L269 .L267: movq %rax, -56(%rbp) movq -56(%rbp), %rax @@ -2617,7 +2610,6 @@ je .L250 jmp .L285 .L277: -.L264: jmp .L269 .L283: movq %rax, %rbx