other than knowing what symbol it uses/def to get the ud correct
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
> wopt do not deal with ASM stmts
> Sun
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Gang Yu wrote:
>
>> Goal of this fix is not to handle ASM_INPUT, rather the condition
>> simplify.
>>
>
wopt do not deal with ASM stmts
Sun
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Gang Yu wrote:
> Goal of this fix is not to handle ASM_INPUT, rather the condition simplify.
>
> Regards
> Gang
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
>
>> Also, I don't believe we ever designed WOPT to deal w
Goal of this fix is not to handle ASM_INPUT, rather the condition simplify.
Regards
Gang
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
> Also, I don't believe we ever designed WOPT to deal with ASM statements.
> To teach various phase to optimize asm stmt in wopt is not the goal.
> Sun
>
>
gcc does not do the built_in fold at O2.
Regards
Gang
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
> if at O0, gcc optimized it, why is it the case different at O2?
> Sun
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Gang Yu wrote:
>
>> For your questions:
>> [1]. why the assertion,
>> asm vola
Also, I don't believe we ever designed WOPT to deal with ASM statements. To
teach various phase to optimize asm stmt in wopt is not the goal.
Sun
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Sun Chan wrote:
> if at O0, gcc optimized it, why is it the case different at O2?
> Sun
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at
if at O0, gcc optimized it, why is it the case different at O2?
Sun
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Gang Yu wrote:
> For your questions:
> [1]. why the assertion,
> asm volatile ("%0" : : "i#*X"(x)); is a wrong assembler statement, it
> should be DCEed by optimizer and should not exist in C
For your questions:
[1]. why the assertion,
asm volatile ("%0" : : "i#*X"(x)); is a wrong assembler statement, it
should be DCEed by optimizer and should not exist in CG phase.
[2]. in order to get DCE. we should make condition
_builtin_constant_p (x)
&& x != 0
be folded to constant 0, i
Pls send more info for me to adequately review this fix.
Why do you suggest this fix. What is the problem with the assertion.
If you do that at -O0, what would happen?
Sun
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Gang Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Could a gatekeeper please help review the fix for bug595(
> ht
