[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2012-11-09 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004 Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2012-11-08 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004 --- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-08 23:07:36 UTC --- May be fixed by the patch that was applied for PR54364.

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2012-03-16 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004 --- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-16 23:59:41 UTC --- Ehm, why does tree tail-merge not run at -Os? It's a size optimization, after all!

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2012-02-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-04 03:00:33 UTC --- First off, I think cselim should also be run at -Os. And then we have the issue of tree-ssa-tail-merge not running at -Os.

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2010-01-11 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 09:35 --- Re. comment #5 -- rth, any suggestions what an algorithm would look like to minimize the number of branches, or the total size of all of the branch instructions? And what do you mean with some clever changes to the

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2009-08-19 Thread carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #4 from carrot at google dot com 2009-08-19 21:55 --- (In reply to comment #2) Why does the basic block reordering pass also not handle this? Basic block reordering is disabled with options -Os. The basic block reordering algorithm is for performance only, it usually

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2009-08-19 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-19 23:06 --- Basic block reordering *should* be altered to work with -Os. It's definitely required to clean up silly jump sequences that exception handling creates. There's no reason, in principal, that the ordering algorithm can't

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2009-08-08 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org

[Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks

2009-08-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-08 10:36 --- I would suggest to closely look at SSA expansion as well. There is I think still the regression from pre-SSA expand that it doesn't expand PHI nodes optimally at -Os (pre-SSA expand split common PHI args into extra