--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-07 12:08 ---
I agree.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 ---
gimplification is almost certainly the wrong place to be doing the kind of
dataflow we'd need to determine where we could insert load/save pairs of
globals.
Really.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
14:22 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought.
> >
>
> No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identica
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:09 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought.
>
No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical
expressions, see internal_get_tmp_var/lookup
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 22:04 ---
Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
