* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 3:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 4:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 3:58 ` [Bug middle-end/17967] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 4:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 12:34 ` [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 04:02 -------
4.0.0:
Execution times (seconds)
preprocessing : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.12 (17%) sys 0.16 ( 1%) wall
lexical analysis : 0.12 ( 1%) usr 0.23 (32%) sys 0.47 ( 3%) wall
parser : 0.14 ( 1%) usr 0.15 (21%) sys 0.23 ( 1%) wall
tree gimplify : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.04 ( 0%) wall
tree eh : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 0%) wall
tree CFG construction : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.06 ( 0%) wall
tree CFG cleanup : 0.09 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.10 ( 1%) wall
tree PTA : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree PHI insertion : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree SSA rewrite : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%) sys 0.03 ( 0%) wall
tree SSA other : 0.06 ( 0%) usr 0.07 (10%) sys 0.16 ( 1%) wall
tree operand scan : 0.04 ( 0%) usr 0.07 (10%) sys 0.10 ( 1%) wall
dominator optimization: 0.08 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.08 ( 1%) wall
tree conservative DCE : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
tree rename SSA copies: 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
dominance frontiers : 0.02 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
expand : 13.82 (95%) usr 0.04 ( 6%) sys 14.35 (90%) wall
global alloc : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
symout : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
TOTAL : 14.60 0.71 15.95
3.3:
Execution times (seconds)
cfg construction : 0.09 ( 2%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
cfg cleanup : 3.47 (79%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 2.00 (50%) wall
trivially dead code : 0.07 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
preprocessing : 0.04 ( 1%) usr 0.12 (22%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
lexical analysis : 0.17 ( 4%) usr 0.19 (35%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
parser : 0.08 ( 2%) usr 0.16 (29%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
expand : 0.04 ( 1%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
integration : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
jump : 0.08 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
CSE : 0.15 ( 3%) usr 0.03 ( 5%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
branch prediction : 0.11 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 2.00 (50%) wall
local alloc : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
global alloc : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 2%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
flow 2 : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
rest of compilation : 0.05 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.00 ( 0%) wall
TOTAL : 4.39 0.55 4.00
remove_useless_stmts is counted in expand.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 3:58 ` [Bug middle-end/17967] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 4:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 12:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 20:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.0 Regression] Expand is |[4.0 Regression] Expand is
|considered slower? (or is it|considered slower?
|because gimplifier |(remove_useless_stmts is
|considered part of expand) |considered part of expand)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-13 12:34 ` [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 20:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-13 20:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 20:26 -------
Someone should see if remove_useless_stmts is really help on compile time or not, this case shows that
it is not a help at all, maybe it should be done after CFG is done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-13 20:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-13 20:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 14:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-13 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-13 20:33 -------
there is a cfg version of remove_useless_stmts, cfg_remove_useless_stmts, maybe someone (not me)
can do some timings (code gen) on this patch:
Index: tree-cfg.c
===============================================================
====
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c,v
retrieving revision 2.74
diff -u -p -r2.74 tree-cfg.c
--- tree-cfg.c 10 Oct 2004 13:16:35 -0000 2.74
+++ tree-cfg.c 13 Oct 2004 20:32:51 -0000
@@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ struct tree_opt_pass pass_remove_useless
{
"useless", /* name */
NULL, /* gate */
- remove_useless_stmts, /* execute */
+ cfg_remove_useless_stmts, /* execute */
NULL, /* sub */
NULL, /* next */
0, /* static_pass_number */
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-13 20:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-14 14:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 14:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-14 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 14:07 -------
Unless someone can prove that eh part of remove_useless_stmt does not matter any more because of
the lowering of eh, I think the patch is wrong. Maybe we can move the eh part into the lowering of the
eh and then we don't have to worry about that if we don't do it alreay.
Doing CFG already does the some parts of remove_useless_stmt and cfg_remove_useless_stmt does the
conditional part already. I think eh lowering does the rest so maybe we can remove this compile time
problem.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-10-14 14:07:16
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-14 14:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-14 14:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 18:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-14 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 14:55 -------
Well I just provided to my self that lowering eh actually does the same job as the old
remove_useless_stmts. I will submit a patch after class and getting home to remove
remove_useless_stmts and change it to cfg_ remove_useless_stmts.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-14 14:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-14 18:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 21:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-14 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 18:38 -------
Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01202.html>. I was convenced by RTH
that removing r_u_s actually can slow it down but he also helped me to figure out where the problem is.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-14 18:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-14 21:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 22:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-14 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 21:59 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-14 21:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-14 22:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-15 4:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-14 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-14 22:00 -------
Subject: Bug 17967
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: pinskia@gcc.gnu.org 2004-10-14 22:00:07
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
Log message:
2004-10-14 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/17967
Revert:
* tree-cfg.c (remove_usless_stmts_cond): Fold statement.
(remove_useless_stmts_1): Fold trees we know how to fold.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.5885&r2=2.5886
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.75&r2=2.76
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-14 22:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-15 4:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-15 4:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-15 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 04:16 -------
Subject: Bug 17967
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: pinskia@gcc.gnu.org 2004-10-15 04:15:52
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
Log message:
2004-10-14 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Revert:
2004-10-14 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/17967
Revert:
* tree-cfg.c (remove_usless_stmts_cond): Fold statement.
(remove_useless_stmts_1): Fold trees we know how to fold.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.5895&r2=2.5896
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.76&r2=2.77
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-15 4:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-15 4:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-17 22:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-15 4:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 04:17 -------
The patch had to be reverted as it caused some missed-optimization regressions.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-15 4:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-17 22:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-18 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-17 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-17 22:55 -------
As said before this patch fixes this regression but cause some optimizations regression because fold
does not fold &a[0] + 1 into &a[1] but only fold_stmt (I might be able to remove the fold_stmt on the
COND_EXPR).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|patch |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-17 22:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-18 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-23 19:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-23 19:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-18 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-18 18:31 -------
I am testing a new patch which this time I fully tested it (it only removes the fold_stmt from the
COND_EXPR as that is not needed at all).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-18 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-23 19:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-23 19:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-23 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-23 19:16 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17967] [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (remove_useless_stmts is considered part of expand)
2004-10-13 3:58 [Bug middle-end/17967] New: [4.0 Regression] Expand is considered slower? (or is it because gimplifier considered part of expand) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-23 19:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-23 19:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-23 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-23 19:17 -------
Subject: Bug 17967
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: pinskia@gcc.gnu.org 2004-10-23 19:17:09
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
Log message:
2004-10-23 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/17967
* tree-cfg.c (remove_usless_stmts_cond): Don't Fold statement.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.5996&r2=2.5997
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.88&r2=2.89
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17967
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread