On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, Jeff Law wrote: > > 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.
I have committed it then. Thank you for your review. > 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. I think it would make sense to run RISC-V performance evaluation w/ and w/o Roger's applied. Sadly I am somewhat resource-constrained right now and won't be able to do that anytime soon, but hopefully there's enough RISC-V hardware available now for someone to pick it up. Maciej
