Hi Jeff, Yes. The latter one "[PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430)" supersedes the earlier one " Fixing ifcvt issue as exposed by BZ89430".
Thanks, -Jiangning -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:54 PM To: JiangNing OS <jiangn...@os.amperecomputing.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430) On 3/14/19 10:46 PM, JiangNing OS wrote: > This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the > simple case below, > > if (...) > x = a; /* x is memory */ > /* no else */ > > We can generate conditional move and remove the branch as below if the target > cost is acceptable. > > r1 = x > r2 = a > cmp ... > csel r3, r1, r2, cond > x = r3 > > This could be safe if x is a stack variable, and there isn't any address > taken in current function, so the store speculation can be avoided. > > In practice, this optimization can improve a real application performance by > %4 on aarch64. [ ... ] I notice that a couple weeks you'd sent a similar patch under the heading "Fixing ifcvt issue as exposed by BZ89430". Does this patch supersede the earlier patch? Jeff
