------- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-09-16 12:31 ------- Subject: Re: Missed devirtualization
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 12:25 > ------- > Hmm, so do you have any idea where folding should be added for this particular > case? > > It always seemed to me that it would make sense to add verifier that all > statements are folded (locally, not by looking at SSA graph) at optimization > pass boundaries. Tried it in the past and found a lot of issues that got > fixed, > but we never got into agreeing on any policy here. > > Missing optimizations just because we are stupid enough to forget call fold > when updating something seems bad IMO. I'm lost in this PR - for what testcase what statement needs folding (and what pending patches do I need to apply to see that)? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605
