Re: Question on Gimple canonicalization

2013-04-16 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:51 +0100, Sofiane Naci wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Consider the following sequence, which computes 2 addresses to access an >> > array: >> > >> > _2 = (long uns

Re: Question on Gimple canonicalization

2013-04-12 Thread Bill Schmidt
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:51 +0100, Sofiane Naci wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Consider the following sequence, which computes 2 addresses to access an > > array: > > > > _2 = (long unsigned int) i_1(D); > > _3 = _2 * 200; > > _4 = _3 + 1000;

Re: Question on Gimple canonicalization

2013-04-12 Thread Bill Schmidt
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:51 +0100, Sofiane Naci wrote: > Hi, > > Consider the following sequence, which computes 2 addresses to access an > array: > > _2 = (long unsigned int) i_1(D); > _3 = _2 * 200; > _4 = _3 + 1000; > _6 = A2_5(D) + _4; > *_6[0] = 1; > _9 = _3 + 2000; > _10 = A2_