--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-07 12:13 ---
Note that I think it is good that we always have a return decl. So this PR
is IMHO invalid (or at least we wont fix it for a reason). There is PR27800
which is IMHO valid.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2007-01-28
22:04 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
i.e. it misses to initialize the temporary with the result. Otherwise you
can play with variants of the following patch:
Richard, have you tried to make this patch work? It
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 22:17 ---
Well, it fails in interesting ways if I remember correctly and no, I'm not
looking into this at the moment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27798
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 11:53 ---
The inliner needs this temporary appearantly. Otherwise you'll get
bar ()
{
int D.1524;
bb 2:
if (D.1524 != 0) goto L0; else goto L1;
L0:;
abort ();
L1:;
return;
}
out of
inline int foo () { return
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
14:42 ---
One of the issues with this PR and also 27800, 27809 and 27810 is that this
extra work/memory allocation done for a number of functions that are never
used: like all the inline functions present in the
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-13 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: gimplifying return CONSTANT creates
unneeded temporaties
dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu wrote on 06/13/06 10:42:
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 18:08 ---
Confirmed, I was going to ask about this a while back. (before you start
filing a bug about a[i] creating an extra temporary, that is PR 23401).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
