Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
>> Some discussion later, they decided it would be better to implement the
>> optimization using inter-procedural dead store analysis:
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg01602.html
>
> I agree that this would be a much nicer way ...
Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Some discussion later, they decided it would be better to implement the
> optimization using inter-procedural dead store analysis:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg01602.html
I agree that this would be a much nicer way ...
> This doesn't seem to have actu
On 29/07/10 17:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> So basically we're left with this patch that does something we want, but
> not in a way that can go upstream. :(
>
> The question is, should I merge this to Linaro, or not? Loic and I
> agreed to hold off until I'd done a bit more research and/or tried to
>
On 29/07/10 17:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This patch was originally submitted, by RedHat, to gcc-patches here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/subjects.html#00982
Joseph points out, the patch we have in our tree is not actually the
same one posted in the link above. Our patch is a dif
As already discussed with Loic, CodeSourcery have a GCC patch that
implements a new optimization: -fremove-local-statics.
Essentially, it transforms code like this:
int foo (void) { static int a = 1; return a; }
into this:
int foo (void) { int a = 1; return a; }
Admittedly, if the c
