+2010-11-11 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
+
+ * tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_mult_to_fma): Do not verify
+ that the target has the exact fma operation that we matched.
+
2010-11-11 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
* reginfo.c (fix_register): Avoid inserting English word in
enum tree_code use_code;
tree result = mul_result;
bool negate_p = false;
- optab opt;
use_stmt = USE_STMT (use_p);
negate_p = true;
}
- /* Determine if the target supports the exact form we found. */
switch (use_code)
{
case MINUS_EXPR:
- if (gimple_assign_rhs1 (use_stmt) == result)
- {
- opt = negate_p ? fnms_optab : fms_optab;
- break;
- }
- negate_p = !negate_p;
- /* FALLTHRU */
-
+ if (gimple_assign_rhs2 (use_stmt) == result)
+ negate_p = !negate_p;
+ break;
case PLUS_EXPR:
- opt = negate_p ? fnma_optab : fma_optab;
break;
-
default:
/* FMA can only be formed from PLUS and MINUS. */
return false;
}
- if (optab_handler (opt, TYPE_MODE (type)) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
- return false;
/* We can't handle a * b + a * b. */
if (gimple_assign_rhs1 (use_stmt) == gimple_assign_rhs2 (use_stmt))
return false;
+
+ /* While it is possible to validate whether or not the exact form
+ that we've recognized is available in the backend, the assumption
+ is that the transformation is never a loss. For instance, suppose
+ the target only has the plain FMA pattern available. Consider
+ a*b-c -> fma(a,b,-c): we've exchanged MUL+SUB for FMA+NEG, which
+ is still two operations. Consider -(a*b)-c -> fma(-a,b,-c): we
+ still have 3 operations, but in the FMA form the two NEGs are
+ independant and could be run in parallel. */
}
FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (use_stmt, imm_iter, mul_result)