[PATCH][4/n] tree LIM TLC

[Richard Biener]

This makes us only consider stores instead of all references when
looking for store motion opportunities.

Bootstrap pending on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, queued for 4.9.

To be committed with omitting the gcc_checking_assert.

Richard.

2013-03-12  Richard Biener  <rguent...@suse.de>

        * tree-ssa-loop-im.c (can_sm_ref_p): Do not test whether
        ref is stored in the loop.
        (find_refs_for_sm): Walk only over all stores.

Index: trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c
===================================================================
*** trunk.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c   2013-03-12 13:25:30.000000000 +0100
--- trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c        2013-03-12 13:28:49.468824315 +0100
*************** can_sm_ref_p (struct loop *loop, mem_ref
*** 2284,2291 ****
      return false;
  
    /* Unless the reference is stored in the loop, there is nothing to do.  */
!   if (!bitmap_bit_p (ref->stored, loop->num))
!     return false;
  
    /* It should be movable.  */
    if (!is_gimple_reg_type (TREE_TYPE (ref->mem))
--- 2284,2290 ----
      return false;
  
    /* Unless the reference is stored in the loop, there is nothing to do.  */
!   gcc_checking_assert (bitmap_bit_p (ref->stored, loop->num));
  
    /* It should be movable.  */
    if (!is_gimple_reg_type (TREE_TYPE (ref->mem))
*************** can_sm_ref_p (struct loop *loop, mem_ref
*** 2322,2328 ****
  static void
  find_refs_for_sm (struct loop *loop, bitmap sm_executed, bitmap refs_to_sm)
  {
!   bitmap refs = memory_accesses.all_refs_in_loop[loop->num];
    unsigned i;
    bitmap_iterator bi;
    mem_ref_p ref;
--- 2321,2327 ----
  static void
  find_refs_for_sm (struct loop *loop, bitmap sm_executed, bitmap refs_to_sm)
  {
!   bitmap refs = memory_accesses.all_refs_stored_in_loop[loop->num];
    unsigned i;
    bitmap_iterator bi;
    mem_ref_p ref;