--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 17:37
---
The original testcase is fixed by the alias-oracle. The testcase in
comment #3 was fixed by SFTs. I'll add a testcase for that (the important
part is the store sinking).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 17:46
---
Subject: Bug 13761
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 14 17:45:20 2008
New Revision: 133224
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133224
Log:
2008-03-14 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 14:39
---
The problem for the original testcase is that we don't even try to build SFTs
required for structure aliasing analysis for incoming pointers:
foo0 (f)
{
int D.1529;
bb 2:
# SMT.4_4 = V_MAY_DEF SMT.4_3;
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 18:47
---
The copyprop enhancement patch I have in development handles the case where the
stores are not constant. I.e.
int tmp = 1;
f-s = tmp;
f-s2 = 2;
if (f-s != tmp)
link_error ();
and -fno-tree-ccp.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13761
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
15:28 ---
The example from comment #3 now optimizes to identical inner loops:
;; Function foo (foo)
foo ()
{
int i.54;
int lsm_tmp.32;
int lsm_tmp.31;
int i;
int D.1628;
int D.1627;
int
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
15:31 ---
Oddly, the test case from comment #1 is not fixed. Sorry for the
inconvenience.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
15:40 ---
Yes, it won't be fixed till 4.2, or the aliasing branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13761
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
16:52 ---
Will the second part of the struct alias merge fix Dann's original
test case? (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Structure Aliasing Part II)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13761
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 16:52 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
16:52 ---
Will the second part of the struct alias merge fix Dann's original
test case? (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Structure Aliasing Part II)
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
18:41 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] component refs to the
same struct should not alias
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 16:52 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-13
00:46 ---
Dale's testcase is now fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13761
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-20
16:35 ---
The structure-aliasing branch now has code (or will as soon as cvs finishes
committing) that will fix dale's testcaes to the extent i can.
We produce identical code for both loops, now.
I haven't quite
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-28 20:28
---
dberlin's field-based SSA work should help here. Dan, want to take this one?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-28 20:34
---
*** Bug 13765 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13761
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 21:58 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] component refs to the
same struct should not alias
dberlin's field-based SSA work should help here. Dan, want to take this one?
Sure.
Just reassign it to me
:)
--
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
17 matches
Mail list logo
