diff options
| author | Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> | 2026-02-04 14:14:37 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> | 2026-02-05 12:49:27 +0000 |
| commit | c4d53bc3c96770438d63a0d35a638beabad67c65 (patch) | |
| tree | cb0aed871ba3a5006a92f3b30d04abb6ca164cd3 /libjava/gnu/java/security/jce | |
| parent | a985742fc083a2be20519d902bf41dd5ee2585ca (diff) | |
| download | gcc-c4d53bc3c96770438d63a0d35a638beabad67c65.zip gcc-c4d53bc3c96770438d63a0d35a638beabad67c65.tar.gz gcc-c4d53bc3c96770438d63a0d35a638beabad67c65.tar.bz2 | |
compare-elim: arm: enable compare-elimination on Arm [PR123604]
The Arm port has never had the compare elimination pass enabled by
adding a definition of TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM. But just adding this is
insufficient because the target uses COND_EXEC and compare-elim is not
yet set up to handle this.
This seems to be quite simple, since we just need to recognize
COND_EXEC in insns when scanning for uses of the condition code
register.
This is a partial mitigation for the code quality regression
reported in PR target/123604.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/123604
* compare-elim.cc (find_flags_uses_in_insn): Handle COND_EXEC.
* config/arm/arm.cc (TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM): Define.
Diffstat (limited to 'libjava/gnu/java/security/jce')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions