[Bug tree-optimization/93102] [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const local array from stack ?

2021-09-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/93102] [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const local array from stack ?

2020-08-04 Thread zhongyunde at tom dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102 --- Comment #4 from zhongyunde at tom dot com --- case from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96427 generates *.LC0, but don't emit an aggregate copy a_1 = *.LC0, i.e. it is legal even for non-const local array. typedef int v4si

[Bug tree-optimization/93102] [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const local array from stack ?

2020-01-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Implementation-wise the issue is we're committing too early to piecewise init of C2029 during gimplification where IMHO we should always emit an aggregate copy C2029 = *.LC0; which would allow

[Bug tree-optimization/93102] [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const local array from stack ?

2019-12-30 Thread zhongyunde at huawei dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102 --- Comment #2 from vfdff --- do you mean the optimization memtioned https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47980 Yes, it can be with optimized option '-fmerge-all-constants', but it doesn't active in default.

[Bug tree-optimization/93102] [optimization] is it legal to avoid accessing const local array from stack ?

2019-12-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93102 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization