[fpc-devel] More peephole

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 22.01.2014 00:27, schrieb Martin Frb:
> On 21/01/2014 21:28, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Am 20.01.2014 01:18, schrieb Martin:
>>
>>> It used
>>> (taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg<>taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^^.ref^.base) and
>>> (taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg<>taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^^.ref^.index) then
>>> but should only compare the supregister part
>>> I replaced that
>>> not(RegInOp(getsupreg(taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg),taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^))
>>> then
>>>
>>> uncommented, and tested.
>>> It does catch a big lot of occurrences.
>> Can you post some example code? It might be worth to think about
>> improving this already in at the node level.
>>
>>
> 
> I will try to find some. (I just enabled it, and put a writeln in there,
> to see, if it was triggered. Then run the tests and buli Lazarus.
> 
> In the meantime, what about the other additions/changes?
> 
> I already wrote code for them, and mailed it.
> So what I need to know: How to best go on to get them accepted and into
> the compiler?
> 

Submit them to a bug report, I can look during the weekend into them.