[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Apr 17 15:52:16 2019 New Revision: 270414 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270414=gcc=rev Log: 2019-04-17 Martin Jambor Backport from mainline 2019-03-10

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Sun Mar 10 16:20:06 2019 New Revision: 269556 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269556=gcc=rev Log: Make SRA less strict with memcpy performing MEM_REFs 2019-03-10 Martin Jambor

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for > the type of a field at the particular position? I was thinking about exactly this

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for the type of a field at the particular position?

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- The problem is that we now consider MEM_REFs loading a different type than the one of the underlying DECL as V_C_E and are equally careful about it. I this particular case, we have statements like.

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.3 |8.4 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- My apologies, I forgot about this bug. I will have a look this week.

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization