--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
17:12 ---
I'm going to go a step further and mark this INVALID.
Since we already do the right thing at -Os, and there's no evidence that we're
actually generating slower code at -O2, I'm not worried about this issue
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
13:46 ---
Mark, can we move the milestone on this one please? There is no way
this will be fixed for GCC 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-12
00:06 ---
Gosh, I don't even see how this is a regression. Geez. Come on guys.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
02:53 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> yes, but if GVNPRE hoists the operation, we end up with:
>
> int f(int i, int b, int *c)
> {
> int ii;
> ii = i+1;
> if (b)
> ;
> else
> *c = ii;
> return ii;
>
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
02:49 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> An example of where not doing hurts:
> int ii;
> int f(int i, int b, int *c)
> {
> if (b)
>ii = i +1;
> else
>{
> *c = ii = i+1;
>}
> return ii;
> }
>
>
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15
07:53 ---
Not a hog, just a missed optimization.
Let's reserve the *hog keywords for *real* hogs...
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15
02:17 ---
An example of where not doing hurts:
int ii;
int f(int i, int b, int *c)
{
if (b)
ii = i +1;
else
{
*c = ii = i+1;
}
return ii;
}
As there is a store to ii and then a load from it.
--
