--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23619
--- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 17:53
---
Fixed
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-15 15:04
---
This should be fixed now with the PRE patches committed and the reassocpatches
committed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23619
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
19:31 ---
mine
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dberlin at gcc d
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
19:31 ---
Subject: Bug 23619
Zdenek, the following patch (bootstrapping now) should fix your bug
23619.diff
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
19:31 ---
Created an att
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
19:29 ---
not a dupe
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRME
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
15:23 ---
Subject: Re: Missed pre opportunity
> Disabling reassoc, it knows that p + q is antic over the backedge.
> Which means it knows it *could* insert it.
Okay, it determines it's not fully available in block
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
15:15 ---
Subject: Re: Missed pre opportunity
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 12:46 +, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
> 12:46 ---
>
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
13:40 ---
Subject: Re: Missed pre opportunity
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
> 12:53 ---
> Yes it i
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
12:53 ---
Yes it is a dup as, the issue is we don't pre things for:
if (a)
d = b + c;
else
d = b + e;
Where b is a complex expression (yes this is simplifing it).
Even pull the load of ii in PR 23286, we still d
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
12:46 ---
Is it really a duplicate? I think that in 23286, VUSE at ii may be the problem;
but in this testcase, there is nothing that can prevent p+q from being moved out
of loop. Also, in the expression p + q is par
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-29
12:33 ---
This is a dup of bug 23286 and a couple other ones.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23286 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
