Hi! On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:20:35PM +0200, Stefan Franke wrote: > is there a chance that a patch would be accepted if it adds (an) additional > peephole pass(es)? That would need some serious justification. > I'm not content with the capabilities of the combine pass Sorry to hear that. Do you have any concrete complaints? > and a convenient > way would be to insert an additional pass in front/after the combine pass. > It's way easier to maintain than the spaghetti code in combine and ss long Spaghetti code? Heh. There is a lot of run-on code; there is a little bit of action-at-a-distance; and almost all other sins imaginable are committed somewhere as well, but spaghetti? Not so much :-) > there is nothing defined in the cpu's md file, the pass gets skipped, so the > overhead for non-users is almost non existent. > > > > Right now I'm applying the same set as in the final peephole run, but I > would add a separate keyword per pass, e.g. peephole_precombine, etc. p.p. > > > > Your thoughts? It probably would help if you could start with an example that shows that an extra peephole pass would help. Segher
