}
}

// Profile the aforementioned optimization from two angles:
//
//	SoloJump: generated branching code has one 'jump', for '<' and '>='
//	CombJump: generated branching code has two consecutive 'jump', for '<=' and '>'
//
// We expect that 'CombJump' is generally on par with the non-optimized code, and
// 'SoloJump' demonstrates some improvement.
// It's for arm64 initially, please see https://github.com/golang/go/issues/38740

		}
	case ssa.BlockExit, ssa.BlockRetJmp:
	case ssa.BlockRet:
		s.Prog(obj.ARET)

	case ssa.Block386EQF:
		s.CombJump(b, next, &eqfJumps)

	case ssa.Block386NEF:
		s.CombJump(b, next, &nefJumps)

	case ssa.Block386EQ, ssa.Block386NE,
		ssa.Block386LT, ssa.Block386GE,
		ssa.Block386LE, ssa.Block386GT,
		ssa.Block386OS, ssa.Block386OC,

	p := s.Br(jump.Jump, b.Succs[jump.Index].Block())
	p.Pos = b.Pos
}

// CombJump generates combinational instructions (2 at present) for a block jump,
// thereby the behaviour of non-standard condition codes could be simulated
func (s *State) CombJump(b, next *ssa.Block, jumps *[2][2]IndexJump) {
	switch next {
	case b.Succs[0].Block():
		s.oneJump(b, &jumps[0][0])