--- Comment #6 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 11:38
---
we get better code in the head. Both the cases [test1 and test2] produce the
same piece of code:
i.e for the following test case:
void foo(char *p);
void test1(char * p)
{
foo(p++);
foo(p++);
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07:42 ---
Couldn't this be fixed also by changing the initial gimplification from:
p.0 = p;
p = p + 1;
foo (p.0);
to:
p.0 = p;
foo (p.0);
p = p + 1;
?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34737
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-24 09:07 ---
Subject: Re: Scheduling of post-modified function
arguments is not good
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07:42
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-11 11:33 ---
No what happened with 4.0 is rather DOM would prop x+1 for each x.
Really this comes down to scheduling of instructions and moving them closer to
their usage.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
