http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-04 21:12:35 UTC ---
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
>
> --- Comment #11 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-04
> 19:04:2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #11 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-04
19:04:29 UTC ---
I looked into CCP a bit and it seems like no alignment analysis whatsoever is
done for either &tmp nor &src[0] in
==
__builtin_memcpy (&tmp, &src[0], 8);
==
That is because
1. ccp_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-04 18:49:34 UTC ---
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
>
> --- Comment #9 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-04
> 18:09:15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #9 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-04
18:09:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> In the end we _should_ be able to use alignment information of the
> types used at the access (that's also more reliable as compared to
> use alignment inf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 17:01:08 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
>
> --- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-02
> 16:42:40
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-02
16:42:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
...
< , as an example look at the types the C frontend
> generates for struct X __attribute__((packed)) { int x; };
> void foo (struct X *p, int *q) { memcpy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-11-12 11:23:51 UTC ---
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
>
> Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Comment #3 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-20 09:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=20439)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20439&action=view)
reduced test case, corrected
Oops, I attached the wrong version of the test case.
--
mikpe at it dot uu dot se c
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-20 09:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=20438)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20438&action=view)
reduced test case
With this reduced test case I see the missed-optimization for both ARM and
Thumb modes with gcc 4.
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2010-04-20 09:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=20435)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20435&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
14 matches
Mail list logo
