Hi,
thanks for the guidance. I'm going to post a new version of the patch with the
testcase modified so that it searches for 'return 9;' instead of '= 9;'.
Filip Kastl
On Fri 2023-10-27 13:55:37, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/23 07:52, Filip Kastl wrote:
> > On Fri 2023-10-20 15:50:25, Fili
On 10/20/23 07:52, Filip Kastl wrote:
On Fri 2023-10-20 15:50:25, Filip Kastl wrote:
Bootstraped and tested* on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
* One testcase (pr79691.c) did regress. However that is because the test is
dependent on a certain variable not being copy propagated. I will go into more
deta
On Fri 2023-10-20 15:50:25, Filip Kastl wrote:
> Bootstraped and tested* on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> * One testcase (pr79691.c) did regress. However that is because the test is
> dependent on a certain variable not being copy propagated. I will go into more
> detail about this in a reply to this m
Hi,
this is a patch that I submitted two months ago as an RFC ([RFC] gimple ssa:
SCCP - A new PHI optimization pass). I added some polish since.
It is a new lightweight pass that removes redundant PHI functions and as a
bonus does basic copy propagation. With Jan Hubička we measured that it is ab
