On 2012-10-01 10:46, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > For the first add2 that seemed to have work correctly, this patch > optimized 0.2% of them. I am not sure it worth it as is.
You're probably right. > I think optimizing add2, and in general all *2 ops is a good idea, but > we should be able to do more agressive optimization. Maybe, a bit like > Blue was suggesting, add2 should always be followed by a nop, so we can > do more optimizations? Adding an extra nop sounds like a better idea than add2_part[12]. And it's probably easier than adding mov2 opcodes -- one little assert inside the optimizer and we're golden. r~
