From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40561)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QNUhS-0002RW-00
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:45:26 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QNUhR-0004Ju-5P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:45:25 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:43190)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QNUhR-0004Jn-0E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:45:25 -0400
Received: by pzk30 with SMTP id 30so2232533pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD6B6C2.7070803@twiddle.net>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:45:22 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1305889001.git.batuzovk@ispras.ru>
	<898222ebb06df066cad8c5286bee65319e46789a.1305889001.git.batuzovk@ispras.ru>
In-Reply-To: <898222ebb06df066cad8c5286bee65319e46789a.1305889001.git.batuzovk@ispras.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] Do constant folding for boolean
	operations.
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kirill Batuzov <batuzovk@ispras.ru>
Cc: mj.mccormack@samsung.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, zhur@ispras.ru

On 05/20/2011 05:39 AM, Kirill Batuzov wrote:
> +        case INDEX_op_or_i32:
> +        case INDEX_op_and_i32:
> +#if TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64
> +        case INDEX_op_and_i64:
> +        case INDEX_op_or_i64:
> +#endif
> +            if (args[1] == args[2]) {
> +                if (args[1] == args[0]) {
> +                    args += 3;
> +                    gen_opc_buf[op_index] = INDEX_op_nop;
> +                } else {

I do wonder if it would be better to split this sort of optimization
out into a different function.  You're applying identity sorts of
functions here, where you're not doing it for other operations, 
such as x + 0.

Indeed, I'll argue that 0+x is more likely to happen than x|x, given
that the 0 value could have been relocation filled in by the linker.
Consider @hi16 and @lo16 relocation pairs when the symbol happens to
be linked into the low 64k of the address space.


r~