https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
You're repeating mistakes fromm the past. The "dumb" approach works for a
single
benchmark (mcf) but isn't at all usable for anything in the real world which
means it is of no use for GCC (when factoring in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Müllner
---
Yes, our current approach is all or nothing (i.e. all uses of a struct are
changed or none).
Optimizing individual uses of a type would allow a more tailored optimization.
We decided to defer such an ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
