From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46443) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4YTX-0006Hb-Pl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:28:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4YTU-0002xb-JY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:28:31 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:55905) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4YTU-0002ww-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:28:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:28:26 -0400 From: "Emilio G. Cota" Message-ID: <20171017202826.GB1345@flamenco> References: <20171016172609.23422-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org> <20171016172609.23422-3-richard.henderson@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20171016172609.23422-3-richard.henderson@linaro.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 02/50] tcg: Propagate args to op->args in optimizer List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:25:21 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > From: Richard Henderson > > Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson > --- > tcg/optimize.c | 430 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- (snip) > @@ -559,7 +557,7 @@ static bool swap_commutative2(TCGArg *p1, TCGArg *p2) > void tcg_optimize(TCGContext *s) > { > int oi, oi_next, nb_temps, nb_globals; > - TCGArg *prev_mb_args = NULL; > + TCGOp *prev_mb = NULL; > > /* Array VALS has an element for each temp. > If this temp holds a constant then its value is kept in VALS' element. > @@ -576,7 +574,6 @@ void tcg_optimize(TCGContext *s) > TCGArg tmp; > > TCGOp * const op = &s->gen_op_buf[oi]; > - TCGArg * const args = op->args; Reviewed-by: Emilio G. Cota Just for my own education: why doesn't gcc generate the same code when leaving 'args' as above? I thought we could simplify the diff without any side effects, but it turns out that more code is generated. Thanks, E.