https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #14 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxue
Date: Thu Nov 7 15:43:01 2019
New Revision: 277923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277923=gcc=rev
Log:
Loop split on semi-invariant conditional statement
2019-11-07 Feng Xue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #13 from Jiangning Liu
---
Feng already sent out the 1st patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00541.html .
But the 2nd one is related to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89713 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #12 from joey.ye.cc at gmail dot com ---
Feng,
Have you made any progress on these problems? If advice is still
needed, I would suggest you share more details about these problems,
and people like Bin and Richi and Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #11 from Feng Xue ---
Actually, I am working on adding optimizations to enable this opportunity,
which can be discomposed to two sub-problems: breaking-loop transformation
mentioned above, and empty-loop elimination. I have worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #10 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> But since GCC emits infinite loops regardless of whether or not
> they have any side-effects, whether inc() is pure or not may not matter.
I think "for (; it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #8 from Feng Xue ---
My mistake, transformation should be:
void f (std::map m)
{
for (auto it = m.begin (); it != m.end (); ++it) {
if (b) {
b = do_something();
} else {
++it;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||innat_xue at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
The loop below should be treated as a finite loop,
for (iter = booktable.begin(); iter!=booktable.end(); ++iter) {
...
}
so there is a chance to optimize away the empty loop, in which do_something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Jiangning Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
15 matches
Mail list logo
