[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

2008-12-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-07 12:08 --- I agree. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

2006-06-13 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:09 --- (In reply to comment #1) Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought. No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical expressions, see

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

2006-06-13 Thread dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13 14:22 --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought. No, we intentionally use the same variable for the lexically identical

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

2006-06-13 Thread dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-13 14:26 --- gimplification is almost certainly the wrong place to be doing the kind of dataflow we'd need to determine where we could insert load/save pairs of globals. Really. --

[Bug tree-optimization/27809] inefficient gimplification of globals

2006-05-29 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 22:04 --- Hmm, it should have produced G.3, G.n, at least I would have thought. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added