On 11/28/22 10:44, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
Your patch is probably still useful. I think Kito's only concern was to make
sure we don't have the ANDI instruction in addition to not having the SEXT
instruction. So still approved for trunk, just update the testcases to make
sure we don't have the ANDI too.
Given the false negatives how about getting a bit stricter and also
checking there's nothing following the XORI instruction, like here?
It might be an overkill to have a check both for the sequence and for the
absence of ANDI or SEXT.W as well, but I'd rather have them both out of an
abundance of caution.
Sure. That works for me as well. OK for the trunk.
Interestingly enough Raphael and I are looking at a case where Roger's
patch is causing poorer code generation. Given what we're finding as we
work through the other case, I won't be surprised if we find multiple
cases where RISC-V is generating poorer code after that patch, even
though it's a perfectly sensible patch.
jeff
