On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 03:16 -0700, Stephen Clarke wrote:
> > why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the post-increments above the
> > usages in the first loop?
>
> It looks rather like the transformation described next to
> tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c/adjust_iv_update_pos.
Yes, that looks like th
> why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the post-increments above the
> usages in the first loop?
It looks rather like the transformation described next to
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c/adjust_iv_update_pos.
2013/6/18 Steve Ellcey :
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I
>> was looking at this one
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
>> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't se
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I
> was looking at this one
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't seem to.
> I've tried the two func
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 10:07 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a loop induction variable question involving post increment.
> If I have this loop:
>
> [...]
> My question is is: why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the
> post-increments above the usages in the first loop? In my case
> (MIP
