From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34101) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THKcY-0007Ep-Q6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:23:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THKcU-0006zS-MT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:23:42 -0400 Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.126.93]:52046) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THKcU-0006zG-FT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:23:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:23:33 +0200 From: Aurelien Jarno Message-ID: <20120927202333.GL20151@ohm.aurel32.net> References: <1348766113-18373-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <1348766113-18373-11-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <5064A555.4080501@twiddle.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5064A555.4080501@twiddle.net> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/13] tcg: don't explicitely save globals and temps List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:13:25PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/27/2012 10:15 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > @@ -1706,11 +1718,9 @@ static void tcg_reg_alloc_mov(TCGContext *s, const TCGOpDef *def, > > if (!ots->mem_allocated) { > > temp_allocate_frame(s, args[0]); > > } > > - if (ts->val_type == TEMP_VAL_REG) { > > - tcg_out_st(s, ots->type, ts->reg, ots->mem_reg, ots->mem_offset); > > - if (IS_DEAD_ARG(1)) { > > - temp_dead(s, args[1]); > > - } > > + tcg_out_st(s, ots->type, ts->reg, ots->mem_reg, ots->mem_offset); > > + if (IS_DEAD_ARG(1)) { > > + temp_dead(s, args[1]); > > } > > temp_dead(s, args[0]); > > } else if (ts->val_type == TEMP_VAL_CONST) { > > Did this hunk belong to a different patch? It seems like it belongs > with the tcg_reg_alloc_mov rewrite. Yes, it was a simplification meant to go in the patch 7, but it ended up at the wrong place (the assert above already ensure that ts->val_type == TEMP_VAL_REG. I'll move it to the write patch. > If it actually depends on patches 7-8, then perhaps a reorder is better. > > > r~ > > -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net