https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> I have a phiopt change which allows us now to optimize this in phiopt2 (and
> get the tail call in tailr2).
phiprop should do it instead of phiopt ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> > > Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification time IIRC. Which
> > > means "testcases welcome" first, so w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> > Using the C front-end we still have a casting issue.
>
> There are a few issues of even for the C++ front-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Using the C front-end we still have a casting issue.
There are a few issues of even for the C++ front-end IR:
In phiopt1 we have:
if (n_6(D) == m_7(D))
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
This has been fixed at r12-2039-gcd48e550d1dc583, if we use the C++ front-end.
Using the C front-end we still have a casting issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > case INTEGER_TYPE: case ENUMERAL_TYPE: case BOOLEAN_TYPE:
> > case OFFSET_TYPE:
> > + if (TREE_CODE (arg) == TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR)
> > + return fold_build2_loc (loc, TRUTH_ORIF_EXPR, type, TREE_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> Hi,
> this patch solves the testcase.
> The first hunk gets rid of the redundant NOP_EXPR converting TRUTH_EXPR from
> INT to BOOL. The second improves gimplifier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
this patch solves the testcase.
The first hunk gets rid of the redundant NOP_EXPR converting TRUTH_EXPR from
INT to BOOL. The second improves gimplifier to not introduce unnecesary
control flow.
If this ap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Fe produces:
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x76ede690 precision
32 min max
pointer_to_this >
side-effects
arg 0
unit size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > That's only optimizable after the 'mergephi' pass.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> That's only optimizable after the 'mergephi' pass. Before the
> temporary setting is shared by the n==m code. Thus maybe
> 'mergephi' itself can handle this ...
Yep, mergephi seems like resonable place (at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification time IIRC. Which
> means "testcases welcome" first, so we can look at them individually.
The GCC one I saw was equivalent of:
#include
bool
m_is_less_than_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > I have noticed these, too (-Og is pessimzed by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I have noticed these, too (-Og is pessimzed by them). The pattern is
> generated
> by gimplifying.
I wondered why we can't simply update gimplifier to not produce them?
(this is what I wanted to look into t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
19 matches
Mail list logo
