------- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de  2010-09-16 12:31 -------
Subject: Re:  Missed devirtualization

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-16 12:25 
> -------
> Hmm, so do you have any idea where folding should be added for this particular
> case?
> It always seemed to me that it would make sense to add verifier that all
> statements are folded (locally, not by looking at SSA graph) at optimization
> pass boundaries. Tried it in the past and found a lot of issues that got 
> fixed,
> but we never got into agreeing on any policy here.
> Missing optimizations just because we are stupid enough to forget call fold
> when updating something seems bad IMO.

I'm lost in this PR - for what testcase what statement needs folding
(and what pending patches do I need to apply to see that)?



Reply via email to