On 5/8/05, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hello,
> I have looked at the GCSE CPROP passes with CSE path following
> disabled ("-O1 -fgcse --param max-cse-path-length=1"). The input
> code are the cc1-i files from 20040726 (with checking enabled).
While that discussion flies way
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 14:24 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Oops. Not a modified tree, non-standard command line options:
> > -O -fgcse --param max-cse-path-length=1
>
> Ah, I see. Well, I think this is a misfeature of gcse i
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Oops. Not a modified tree, non-standard command line options:
> -O -fgcse --param max-cse-path-length=1
Ah, I see. Well, I think this is a misfeature of gcse in how
it decides how to update expressions. With a bit more thought
w
On Sunday 08 May 2005 21:00, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 04:33:28PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Can we expose this kind of address arithmetic to the tree
> > optimizers? Should we?
>
> No and no.
Clear enough :-)
> I've always believed that we'd be keeping an rtl gcs
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:06:04PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> A test case that shows what is going on is this:
>
> extern char *x;
> void
> foo (char *a, char *b)
> {
> if (!x)
> x = a;
> else
> x = b;
> }
This test case doesn't show anything. .04.cse merges all the high parts
o
On Sunday 08 May 2005 22:19, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:06:04PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > A test case that shows what is going on is this:
> >
> > extern char *x;
> > void
> > foo (char *a, char *b)
> > {
> > if (!x)
> > x = a;
> > else
> > x = b;
> >
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 04:33:28PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Can we expose this kind of address arithmetic to the tree
> optimizers? Should we?
No and no. I've always believed that we'd be keeping an rtl gcse
pass exactly for the reason of address arithmetic.
r~
