https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 20 12:02:56 2019
New Revision: 274746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-20 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/37242
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
/* Match arithmetic done in a different type where we can easily
substitute the result from some earlier sign-changed or widened
operation. */
if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #24 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r257061 optimize too
gcc version 8.0.1 20180125 (experimental) [trunk revision 257061] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimhen at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #22 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-29 00:20:17 UTC
---
Hey Andrew, any word on your patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-18
22:50:42 UTC ---
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-28
09:51:13 UTC ---
The testcases in comment #3 and #4 do not seem to be fixed with 4.6.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #19 from M
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 08:57 ---
Just let me finish fixing a "side bug" that is exposed by my patch, then I'll
post a RFC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 08:56 ---
full redundancy.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-28 08:45 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 08:42 ---
> I think that PRE d
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 08:42 ---
I think that PRE does not try to simplify expressions that it inserts.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-28 08:02 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 06:16 ---
> Answering to your
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 06:16 ---
Answering to your comment #11, one is a sizetype and one is not. But it is
enough to extend my fold-const.c patch to MULT_EXPRs in order to catch it.
Also, the problem with the full testcase is that PRE is not cascading "
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-28 06:09 ---
I have a patch for the minimal testcase, but not for the full PRE testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 20:17 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> Yet another piece of the puzzle:
> Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> =
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:53 ---
Yet another piece of the puzzle:
Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- tree-ssa-sccvn.c(revision 139423)
+++ tree-ssa-sccvn.c(working copy)
@@ -2052,6 +2052,
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 19:12 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 17:50 ---
> Subject: Re: missed
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 17:50 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because
of signedness of addition
Maybe we can lookup the non-GIMPLE operands in simplify_unary_expression
and replace them with existing SSA_NAMES if they have been value numbered.
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 09:40 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 06:41 ---
> Minimized test
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 07:15 ---
s/TER does not fold/SCCVN does not accept/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 07:14 ---
With this patch:
Index: fold-const.c
===
--- fold-const.c(revision 139423)
+++ fold-const.c(working copy)
@@ -7868,7 +7868,11 @@ fold_unary (en
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 06:41 ---
Minimized testcase:
int m(int *y, int x)
{
int a = y[x + 1];
int b = y[++x];
return a - b;
}
should be optimized to "return 0"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-26 21:16 ---
>This could be due to array indexing lowered to POINTER_PLUS_EXPR.
Array indexing is never lowered using POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, only for pointers it
is. Though it looks like
we are doing the math in unsigned in one cas
27 matches
Mail list logo
