[Bug tree-optimization/43224] Constant load not raised out of loop

2010-03-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 12:18 --- (In reply to comment #4) Is it possible for aliased writes to affect a const pointer? I was assuming that it wasn't. Yes, it is possible. C const qualification doesn't add any useful information for a compiler

[Bug tree-optimization/43224] Constant load not raised out of loop

2010-03-01 Thread astrange at ithinksw dot com
--- Comment #1 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2010-03-02 03:45 --- Created an attachment (id=20002) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20002action=view) x86-64 asm output -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43224

[Bug tree-optimization/43224] Constant load not raised out of loop

2010-03-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 03:53 --- I think what GCC is doing is correct as lsps could conflict with mul_q and base_q as lsps is not marked as restrict. Doing this: #include string.h void dequant_lsps(double *__restrict lsps, int num,

[Bug tree-optimization/43224] Constant load not raised out of loop

2010-03-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 03:56 --- In fact that is correct, see PR 14192 for the reasons why. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/43224] Constant load not raised out of loop

2010-03-01 Thread astrange at ithinksw dot com
--- Comment #4 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2010-03-02 04:00 --- Is it possible for aliased writes to affect a const pointer? I was assuming that it wasn't. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43224