http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- hubicka at ucw dot cz <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318 > >--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- >> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199140&root=gcc&view=rev >> Log: >> 2013-05-21 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> >> >> PR tree-optimization/57318 >> * tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (tree_estimate_loop_size): Do not >> estimate stmts with side-effects as likely eliminated. >> >> Modified: >> trunk/gcc/ChangeLog >> trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c >> >> Fixed - latent on the branch though. > >Hmm, this heuristic was sort of intended (inliner makes same trick) >We anticipate that making the array stores explicit will enable SRA & >stuff. >But since then I made inliner to asume the 50% probability of >optimizing >these away that works better. > >Did you measure runtime effect of this? (we will see in SPEC graph soon >I guess) This is about Volatile loads and stores. >Honza
