https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270 > > --- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Here is summary of my current understanding of remaining issues from my last > weekend's audit. > > ICF specific: > - ipa-icf-gimple.c needs to match dependence analysis > Richard has propsed a patch for it, so I hope he will commit it tomorrow. > - restrict flag may need to be matched when considering two references > to variables being equal. > Here I am waiting for Richards comment. I would propose matching restricts > in compare_cgraph_references same way as we now compare vtables. Works for me. Having a testcase that shows the issue would be nice though (I don't get the variables merged it seems, or somehow the initializers prevail even on the aliases?) > non-ICF specific wrong codes > - tree-vectorizer is picking up wrong alignment Fixed. > - fold-const.c's operands_equal_p probably needs same treatment for > comparing mem-ref as ipa-icf-gimple has. I think in all cases one can > construct testcase where tree-tail-merge would produce same incorrect > merging as ipa-icf does. No, it simply means that you can't use operand_equal_p (value equivalence) if you want semantic equivalence in a greater scope. This is why I asked for the ICF and tail-merging stmt compare code to be unified ... > stuff that can wait for next stage1 > - ipa-pure-const is probably wrong to check TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTION flag > (something to fix for next stage1) > - expand_builtin_classify_type can probably be dropped, because > fold_classify_type prevails.
