https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I agree about most of the passes you are moving, but I have an (albeit
artificial) testcase that proves that cunrolli does affect objsz:
__SIZE_TYPE__ a[10];
void
foo (void)
{
char *p = __builtin_malloc (64);
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
a[i] = __builtin_object_size (p, 0);
p += 6;
}
}
When objsz is done before cunrolli, a[0] to a[3] will all be 64, while
when it is done after cunrolli, it will be 64, 58, 52, 46.
So, what about a mix of your and my patch, add
--- gcc/passes.def
+++ gcc/passes.def
@@ -194,14 +194,14 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
They ensure memory accesses are not indirect wherever possible. */
NEXT_PASS (pass_strip_predict_hints, false /* early_p */);
NEXT_PASS (pass_ccp, true /* nonzero_p */);
- NEXT_PASS (pass_post_ipa_warn);
/* After CCP we rewrite no longer addressed locals into SSA
form if possible. */
+ NEXT_PASS (pass_post_ipa_warn);
NEXT_PASS (pass_complete_unrolli);
+ NEXT_PASS (pass_object_sizes, false /* insert_min_max_p */);
NEXT_PASS (pass_backprop);
NEXT_PASS (pass_phiprop);
NEXT_PASS (pass_forwprop);
- NEXT_PASS (pass_object_sizes, false /* insert_min_max_p */);
/* pass_build_alias is a dummy pass that ensures that we
execute TODO_rebuild_alias at this point. */
NEXT_PASS (pass_build_alias);
to my patch?
