On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:57:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-1.c execution test
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-5.c scan-assembler-not abort
>
> I admit I haven't looked at the details here, but wonder if the o
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:57:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-1.c execution test
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-5.c scan-assembler-not abort
I admit I haven't looked at the details here, but wonder if the optimization
couldn't be done only in the DCE passes p
On 5/29/19 7:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following tries to address PR90648 by performing final
> value replacement from DCE when DCE knows the final value
> computation is not used during loop iteration. This fits
> neatly enough into existing tricks performed by DCE like
> removing unu
The following tries to address PR90648 by performing final
value replacement from DCE when DCE knows the final value
computation is not used during loop iteration. This fits
neatly enough into existing tricks performed by DCE like
removing unused malloc/free pairs.
There's a few complications,
