On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 18:51, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Well, I was thinking of this test-case:
> >
> > int f(int cond1, int cond2, int cond3, int x, int y)
> > {
> > void f1();
> > void f2(int);
> > void f3();
> >
> > if
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > I was just wondering if second (and higher) o
Hello,
On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc wrote:
> Well, I was thinking of this test-case:
>
> int f(int cond1, int cond2, int cond3, int x, int y)
> {
> void f1();
> void f2(int);
> void f3();
>
> if (cond1)
> f1 ();
> else
> {
> if (cond2)
> f2 (x
On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
> > > the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one succes
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> > I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
> > the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
> >
> > For eg:
> > bb2:
> > if (cond1) goto
On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
> the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
>
> For eg:
> bb2:
> if (cond1) goto bb3 else goto bb4;
>
> bb3:
> if (cond2) goto bb5 else goto bb6;
>
>
Hi Richard,
I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
For eg:
bb2:
if (cond1) goto bb3 else goto bb4;
bb3:
if (cond2) goto bb5 else goto bb6;
bb5:
return x + y;
bb6:
return x + y;
bb4:
if (cond3) goto bb7 else g
