On May 8, 2015 11:58:18 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 05/08/2015 01:07 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> > Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>After your change GCC sees that the code for f1 and f2 are
>identical
>> > >>so it re
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/08/2015 01:07 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > >>
> > >>After your change GCC sees that the code for f1 and f2 are identical
> > >>so it replaced the body of f2 with a call to f1. This optimization will
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 01:07 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Steve Ellcey wrote:
> >>
> >>After your change GCC sees that the code for f1 and f2 are identical
> >>so it replaced the body of f2 with a call to f1. This optimization will
> >>save spa
On 05/08/2015 01:07 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Steve Ellcey wrote:
After your change GCC sees that the code for f1 and f2 are identical
so it replaced the body of f2 with a call to f1. This optimization will
save space but it is not going to be faster because any call to f2 will
now include an
>>> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> After your change GCC sees that the code for f1 and f2 are identical
> so it replaced the body of f2 with a call to f1. This optimization will
> save space but it is not going to be faster because any call to f2 will
> now include an extra call/return. Do other platfor
Jan and Martin,
I just noticed that your patch for PR bootstrap/65150 broke one of the
MIPS tests (gcc.target/mips/branch-1.c). I can fix the test with no
problem but I am wondering if the change I am seeing with your patch
is intended or not.
A cutdown version of the test is:
void bar (void);
