From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-77383-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31958 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 03:51:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31949 invoked by uid 48); 1 Dec 2003 03:51:58 -0000
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20031201035158.31947.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
References: <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-12-01 03:51 -------
Here is valid (correctly initializing "a") code which shows the problem on the tree-ssa and on the 
mainline:
struct A {
  char const* src;
  char* dest;
  void copy() { *++dest = *++src; }
};

void g1(A *b) {
  A a = *b;
  for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
    a.copy();
}

void g2(A* b) {
  A a = *b;
  for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
    *++a.dest = *++a.src;
}

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2003-11-04 14:43:47         |2003-12-01 03:51:57
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566