[fpc-devel] More peephole

[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?

One problem is, if I create 3  or 4  patches, and report them, only one 
will work. The others may then conflict. Or I need to create them, based 
on each other, and only applicable in the right order.

I can do all in one (if that is preferred)...