public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18754] unrolling happens too late/SRA does not happen late enough
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:06:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120150650.13618.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041201143906.18754.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 15:06 -------
Subject: Re: unrolling happens too late/SRA
does not happen late enough
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de wrote:
>
> ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-01-20 14:57 -------
> Subject: Re: unrolling happens too late/SRA
> does not happen late enough
>
>> Note PR 18755 blocks this if we go the SRA after loop optimization which
>> seems like a better idea.
>
> I do not completely understand this sentence ;) I argue that SRA after
> loop is a bad idea, because SRA, in my testcases, will expose new
> oportunities for selecting ivs, so we'll need to run another loop after
> SRA.
Wiat, why are we running SRA twice again at all?
I can't figure this out from the bug report, other than seeing that we
"could sra c.array", but i don't see why that requires a loop opt first.
If you are just trying to convince it that constant indexed accesses to
each prat of that array is actually a different element, the
structure-aliasing branch will help (though not quite yet, because i've
punted on array_ref until i add the code to not punt when we have constant
indexed array_ref)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18754
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-01 14:39 [Bug tree-optimization/18754] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-06 5:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18754] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-16 17:09 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-01-20 10:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-01-20 14:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 14:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-01-20 15:06 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org [this message]
2005-01-20 15:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 15:15 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-01-21 16:08 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2005-05-07 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-18754-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-03-05 21:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-06 14:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-10 9:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-12 16:59 ` belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2008-04-22 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-27 16:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-27 17:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050120150650.13618.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).