On 04/05/17 18:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >> - 5, /* Max cond insns. */ >> + 2, /* Max cond insns. */ > >> This parameter is also used for A32 code. Is that really the right >> number there as well? > > Yes, this parameter has always been the same for ARM and Thumb-2.
I know that. I'm questioning whether that number (2) is right when on ARM. It seems very low to me, especially when branches are unpredictable. > >> I do wonder if the code in arm_option_params_internal should be tweaked >> to hard-limit the number of skipped insns for Thumb2 to one IT block. So > > You mean https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01191.html ? :-) > Haven't got as far as that one yet. R. > Wilco >