On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Essentially never. I tried with the fold_stmt version of the patch, and
libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/concept-inst.cc is the only file where it triggers.
Note that the case:
b=*a
*a=b
is already handled b
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:42:55AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/12/13 02:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> >DSE looks like the right place to me as we are removing a store. Yes,
> >DCE removes a limited set of stores as well, but the way we remove this kind
> >of store makes it much more suited to DSE
On 06/11/13 13:30, Marc Glisse wrote:
I'd be curious how often this triggers in GCC itself as well.
Do you know a convenient way to test that?
I usually put in some kind of debugging printfs during early development
which I can then grep for in build logs. Not very sexy, but effective
to
On 06/12/13 02:03, Richard Biener wrote:
DSE looks like the right place to me as we are removing a store. Yes,
DCE removes a limited set of stores as well, but the way we remove this kind
of store makes it much more suited to DSE.
As of possibly trapping/throwing stores, we do not bother to pr
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> this patch re
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
best way, but it passes a bootstrap and th
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
>>> best way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on
>>> x86_64
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:30:29PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >I'd be curious how often this triggers in GCC itself as well.
>
> Do you know a convenient way to test that?
Perhaps you could put in the
if (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt) == TREE_CODE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt))
&& operand_equal
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
best way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/57361
gcc/
On 06/09/13 10:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the
best way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/57361
gcc/
* tree-ssa-dse.c (dse_possible_dead_
Hello,
this patch removes some self-assignments. I don't know if this is the best
way, but it passes a bootstrap and the testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/57361
gcc/
* tree-ssa-dse.c (dse_possible_dead_store_p): Handle self-assignmen
11 matches
Mail list logo
