On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 04:13, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > --- > tcg/tcg-op-gvec.c | 6 ++---- > tcg/tcg-op.c | 6 ++---- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tcg/tcg-op-gvec.c b/tcg/tcg-op-gvec.c > index a062239804..e260a07c61 100644 > --- a/tcg/tcg-op-gvec.c > +++ b/tcg/tcg-op-gvec.c > @@ -3692,8 +3692,7 @@ static void expand_cmp_i32(uint32_t dofs, uint32_t > aofs, uint32_t bofs, > for (i = 0; i < oprsz; i += 4) { > tcg_gen_ld_i32(t0, cpu_env, aofs + i); > tcg_gen_ld_i32(t1, cpu_env, bofs + i); > - tcg_gen_setcond_i32(cond, t0, t0, t1); > - tcg_gen_neg_i32(t0, t0); > + tcg_gen_negsetcond_i32(cond, t0, t0, t1); > tcg_gen_st_i32(t0, cpu_env, dofs + i); > }
Is it not possible for the optimizer to notice "you did a setcond followed by a neg, let me turn it into negsetcond for you" ? thanks -- PMM