Hi Andrew,
I've been looking at doing this possibly in the store sinking pass and
have the following query as below.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The basic case i
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The majority of the new bugs were places where the rest of the
compiler was just not expecting to see auto inc or dec instructions.
If you want to take on doing this kind of extension, be prepared for
the additional cost.
Ken
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The majority of the new bugs were places where the rest of the
compiler was just not expecting to see auto inc or dec instructions.
If you want to take on doing this kind of extension, be prepared for
the additional cost.
Kenny, do you have any poi
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The majority of the new bugs were places where the rest of the
compiler was just not expecting to see auto inc or dec instructions.
If you want to take on doing this kind of extension, be prepared for
the additional cost.
Kenny, do you have any pointers to autoincrement
The auto-increment code was a quick hack based on the code that
existed in flow.c. I moved it to a new pass and generalized it quite
a bit, but it is at its core, basicly the same local code.
The right way to implement this is as a global, or at least loop by
loop problem where du or ud chains gu
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The basic case is as explained below.
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < 100; i ++)
> > {
> > if ()
> > {
> > a[i
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The basic case is as explained below.
>
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i ++)
> {
> if ()
> {
> a[i] = something;
> }
> else
> a[i] = something else..
>
> }
If it is this case, I think the store to a[i] shoul
Hi ,
I've been looking to sort out a case where one sees the possibility of
doing some kind of redundancy elimination with auto-increment
expressions across basic blocks. I understand based on earlier
conversations as well as looking at auto-inc-dec.c that all
infrastructure for auto-inc-dec works
