--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
20:01 ---
The same holds for the old loop optimizer :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
19:59 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> GCSE store motion does catch this. But it is disabled for GCC 4.0 because
> it is buggy and does not really work well in most cases.
Yes but we don't catch in 3.4.0 so that mean
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
19:53 ---
GCSE store motion does catch this. But it is disabled for GCC 4.0 because
it is buggy and does not really work well in most cases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
19:44 ---
Gcse store motion could catch this as well (if I understand PR 19580 well, it
does not, which is a bug), so this pr alone would not be a reason to block
removal of old loop optimizer. However hopefully we s
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
19:29 ---
Has nothing to do with PPC
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missed store monition o
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
19:27 ---
Right now it is the *old* loop optimizer that promotes the array elements
to registers. How about that.
Is there an "old loop optimizer" meta bug? We'll probably want to do this
elsewhere before the ol
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23
01:47 ---
This needs more alias analysis
Structure aliasing could do this with a little work, so i'll take this for now
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19580
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19581
