diff options
author | Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski@quicinc.com> | 2024-07-25 17:43:07 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org> | 2024-07-28 19:06:00 +0200 |
commit | 65936041dbffdc735bed4dbf831462ff3922d28f (patch) | |
tree | 3a3051c09ac778d3c86e1e6829df82b7746193af /gcc/java | |
parent | f9caac3ac9c1de99092433c4480a6a59c0078790 (diff) | |
download | gcc-65936041dbffdc735bed4dbf831462ff3922d28f.zip gcc-65936041dbffdc735bed4dbf831462ff3922d28f.tar.gz gcc-65936041dbffdc735bed4dbf831462ff3922d28f.tar.bz2 |
isel: Don't duplicate comparisons for -O0 nor -fno-tree-ter [PR116101]
While doing cleanups on this code I noticed that we do the duplicate
of comparisons at -O0. For C and C++ code this makes no difference as
the gimplifier never produces COND_EXPR. But it could make a difference
for other front-ends.
Oh and for -fno-tree-ter, duplicating the comparison is just a waste
as it is never used for expand.
I also decided to add a few testcases so this is checked in the future.
Even added one for the duplication itself.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
PR tree-optimization/116101
gcc/ChangeLog:
* gimple-isel.cc (maybe_duplicate_comparison): Don't
do anything for -O0 or -fno-tree-ter.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/dup_compare_cond-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/dup_compare_cond-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/dup_compare_cond-3.c: New test.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski@quicinc.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc/java')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions