https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> Why don't the existing optimizations work on the artificial function the
> same as any other function? i.e. like
>
> struct S { bool x; };
> void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
In an email thread Jakub wrote:
Only the simplest assumptions in [[assume(cond)]] where there clearly aren't
any
side-effects no risks of them are lowered to if (!cond) __builtin_unreachable
();
in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One way to improve this case would be to teach IPA SRA/CP etc. to perform some
optimizations on the .ASSUME ifn calls and their corresponding functions, in
this case if SRA would turn the argument from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109112
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I also suspect this is a dup of bug 109045 really.
