public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
@ 2004-05-22 5:38 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 11:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-22 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
int f(int i, int b, int *c)
{
int ii;
if (b)
ii = i +1;
else
{
*c = ii = i+1;
}
return ii;
}
Note I added compile time hog and memory hog as this causes too many bb to be there
and more RTL than needed.
--
Summary: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
Product: gcc
Version: 3.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog, compile-time-hog, TREE
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-22 11:49 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-05-22 11:58 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-05-22 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-05-21 12:35 -------
Confirmed, but I don't see it happening at the RTL level either in 3.5.0, so
I'll remove the TREE keyword.
The optimization did happen with 2.95.3 though. I'll mark it as a regression,
even if I expect only a tree-level solution to happen (maybe already with
GCSE), so it won't probably be fixed for the 3.3 branch or 3.4 branch.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|enhancement |critical
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords|TREE |missed-optimization
Known to fail| |3.5.0 3.0.4 3.2.2
Known to work| |2.95.3
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-05-21 12:35:35
date| |
Summary|SSAPRE misses obivous |[3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression]
|redudent expression |SSAPRE misses obivous
| |redudent expression
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 11:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-05-22 11:58 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-05-22 12:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-05-22 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-05-21 12:36 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> (maybe already with GCSE)
^^^^ I meant GVN-PRE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 11:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-05-22 11:58 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-05-22 12:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 13:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-22 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-21 12:59 -------
I had forgot to say it works on powerpc-apple-darwin with all compilers so that is why I had TREE there.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC target triplet| |powerpc-apple-darwin
Keywords| |TREE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-22 12:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-22 13:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 15:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-22 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-21 13:07 -------
I should note that it does happen at -Os on x86-pc-linux-gnu.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-22 13:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-22 15:27 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-05-22 22:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-05-22 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-05-21 14:47 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression
"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| even if I expect only a tree-level solution to happen (maybe already with
| GCSE), so it won't probably be fixed for the 3.3 branch or 3.4 branch.
yes, you're right about 3.3.x.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-22 15:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-05-22 22:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-10 16:05 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-22 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-22 00:08 -------
This should be fixed in GVNPRE.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2004-05-21 12:35:35 |2004-05-22 00:08:45
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-22 22:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-10 16:05 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-10 16:12 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-10 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-10 16:05 -------
Actually, i'm not sure what you expect to happen here.
We won't hoist this because there is no point in hoisting this, it doesn't reduce the total number of
computations along any path, but does increase the lifetime.
There is nothing redundant along any single path in the program.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-10 16:05 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-10 16:12 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-06-10 16:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-06-10 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-06-10 16:12 -------
yes, but if GVNPRE hoists the operation, we end up with:
int f(int i, int b, int *c)
{
int ii;
ii = i+1;
if (b)
;
else
*c = ii;
return ii;
}
that can be later simplified to:
int f(int i, int b, int *c)
{
int ii;
ii = i+1;
if (!b)
*c = ii;
return ii;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-10 16:12 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-06-10 16:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-09 3:53 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-10 16:45 -------
Theoretically yes, but no PRE algorithm will do what you suggest, you need a generic code hoisting
algorithm. The transformation you suggest violates the optimality conditions of PRE, even if it can later
make better code, so it wouldn't be performed.
In short, PRE is for partial redundancies, not a cost based generic code hoister, so this is not a case of
PRE missing obvious redundant expressions. There is no redundant expression (it occurs once along
each path) here that it could eliminate, there is simply an expression that could be hoisted one block
up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-10 16:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-09 3:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 2:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-09 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|2004-05-22 00:08:45 |2004-07-09 03:53:14
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-09 3:53 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-15 2:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 7:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-15 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 02:17 -------
An example of where not doing hurts:
int ii;
int f(int i, int b, int *c)
{
if (b)
ii = i +1;
else
{
*c = ii = i+1;
}
return ii;
}
As there is a store to ii and then a load from it.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC target triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-15 2:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-15 7:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-23 2:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-15 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 07:53 -------
Not a hog, just a missed optimization.
Let's reserve the *hog keywords for *real* hogs...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|compile-time-hog, memory-hog|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-15 7:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-23 2:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-23 2:53 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-23 2:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23 02:49 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> An example of where not doing hurts:
> int ii;
> int f(int i, int b, int *c)
> {
> if (b)
> ii = i +1;
> else
> {
> *c = ii = i+1;
> }
> return ii;
> }
>
> As there is a store to ii and then a load from it.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
At the tree level, there is only a store.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-23 2:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-23 2:53 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-12 0:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-23 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23 02:53 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> yes, but if GVNPRE hoists the operation, we end up with:
>
> int f(int i, int b, int *c)
> {
> int ii;
> ii = i+1;
> if (b)
> ;
> else
> *c = ii;
> return ii;
> }
>
> that can be later simplified to:
>
> int f(int i, int b, int *c)
> {
> int ii;
> ii = i+1;
> if (!b)
> *c = ii;
> return ii;
> }
>
This is still not faster code, only smaller code.
And you'll note that with -Os, this is what we do.
In any case, i have no plan sto make GVN-PRE do this type of hoisting, as i'm
not so interested in code size.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-23 2:53 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-12 0:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 13:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 17:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-12 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-12 00:06 -------
Gosh, I don't even see how this is a regression. Geez. Come on guys.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-12 0:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-21 13:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 17:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-21 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 13:46 -------
Mark, can we move the milestone on this one please? There is no way
this will be fixed for GCC 4.0.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-21 13:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-21 17:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-21 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 17:12 -------
I'm going to go a step further and mark this INVALID.
Since we already do the right thing at -Os, and there's no evidence that we're
actually generating slower code at -O2, I'm not worried about this issue. If
there's evidence that the code we're generating is slower than with a previous
compiler, post assembly code and timing information that shows that.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15559
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-01-21 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-05-22 5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/15559] New: SSAPRE misses obivous redudent expression pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 11:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-05-22 11:58 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-05-22 12:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 13:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-22 15:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] SSAPRE misses obvious redundant expression gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-05-22 22:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-10 16:05 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-10 16:12 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-06-10 16:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-09 3:53 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 2:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 7:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-23 2:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-23 2:53 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-12 0:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 13:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 17:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).