* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
@ 2003-07-16 23:03 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2003-08-17 19:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2003-07-16 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-16 23:03 -------
It is almost fixed on tree-ssa branch, the only thing left is to make sure that the variables get
spilled into the stack.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
2003-07-16 23:03 ` [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2003-08-17 19:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-08-24 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-17 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
2003-07-16 23:03 ` [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2003-08-17 19:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-08-24 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-01 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-24 3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |tree-ssa
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-24 03:51 -------
The problem is that GCC likes to commit stuff to the stack too early, this will be fixed for the tree-
ssa but right now it is not fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-24 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-01 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-17 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-01 3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-01 3:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-17 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-17 17:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-17 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-17 00:24 -------
Fixed on the tree-ssa so closing.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-17 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-17 17:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-17 17:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-13 15:28 ` [Bug optimization (tree-ssa)/9566] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-17 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-17 17:11 -------
Suspending based on this is fixed on the tree-ssa.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-17 17:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-17 17:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-13 15:28 ` [Bug optimization (tree-ssa)/9566] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-17 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-17 17:05 -------
Reopening the bugs that are fixed on the tree-ssa (but not reported against the branch).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization (tree-ssa)/9566] Inline function produces much worse code than manual inlining.
[not found] <20030204102600.9566.osv@javad.ru>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-17 17:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-13 15:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-13 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-13 11:13 -------
Fixed for 3.5.0 by the mere of the tree-ssa.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Component|optimization (RTL) |optimization (tree-ssa)
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|tree-ssa |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9566
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread