https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:48:57 2015
New Revision: 220785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220785root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 220755)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
On 02/17/15 02:44, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
WRT the patch in c#12, it looks reasonable for the same reasons as we avoid
propagating in 23821. I can confirm that it prevents the unwanted cprop into
array reference. By DOM2 we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Yes, any particular choice has the potential to regress in one way or another.
These are heuristics after all. We're just looking for a reasonable refinement
if we can find one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
Kirill, you are correct WRT propagation of b for i. Prior to DOM1 we
have:
;; basic block 3, loop depth 1, count 0, freq 9100,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
But replacement with the most dominating name (presumably a default def
dominates everything) isn't going to help here.
In many ways we'd be better off if we didn't propagate from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Kirill, you are correct WRT propagation of b for i. Prior to DOM1 we have:
;; basic block 3, loop depth 1, count 0, freq 9100, maybe hot
;;prev block 2, next block 4, flags:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
14 matches
Mail list logo
