https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29738
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:21
---
A case predicated VN should handle.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-19 15:02
---
Disabled/xfailed with
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139234
Log:
2008-08-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Exchange store-ccp
--- Comment #12 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 00:35
---
Subject: Bug 29738
Author: chaoyingfu
Date: Fri Dec 1 00:32:38 2006
New Revision: 119391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119391
Log:
Merged revisions 118545-118650 via svnmerge from
svn
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 12:54
---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 00:09
---
Subject: Bug 29738
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 9 00:09:43 2006
New Revision: 118602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118602
Log:
PR tree-optimization/29738
* tree-ssa-ccp.c
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 10:55 ---
> Ah, I see. You are of course completely right. Now the question is,
> why does store_ccp not handle it? (Maybe it is as dis-functional as
> store_copyprop was until I fixed it?)
I ended up rewriting large parts
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-11-06 12:37 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into
loops
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
>
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-06 12:33 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into loops
> But obviously for real operands, foo () won't clobber them. I.e. the
> following
> also could be optimized but is not:
>
> void foo (in
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 12:18 ---
But obviously for real operands, foo () won't clobber them. I.e. the following
also could be optimized but is not:
void foo (int *);
void bar (void)
{
int j;
int i;
i = 0;
for (j = 0; j < 1; j++)
if
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-06 12:08 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into loops
> > --- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 11:51
> > ---
> > > Have you tried
> > >
> > > void foo (void);
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 12:07 ---
Btw, store_ccp should catch the propagation to the PHI node, but somehow it
doesn't.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29738
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-11-06 12:04 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into
loops
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 11:51
> ---
> > Have you tri
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 11:51 ---
> Have you tried
>
> void foo (void);
> void bar (void)
> {
> int i, j;
> i = 0;
> for (j = 0; j < 1; j++)
> if (i)
> foo ();
> }
This would work, obviously.
> For the original problem, why don
--- Comment #1 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-11-06
11:48 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into loops
I think the problem is that "i" is a global variable and thus foo is
potentially
considered as modifying "i". Have you tried
void foo (void);
void b
16 matches
Mail list logo
