From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-129882-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13163 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2005 18:31:25 -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 13151 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2005 18:31:22 -0000
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:09:00 -0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20050208183121.19827.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/19827] New: Missed pure/const optimization
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

The following two function should produce the same asm because we can skip the second call to f:
int f(void) __attribute__((const,pure));

int g(int i, int j)
{
  int k = 0;
  if(i)
    k = f();
  if (j)
    k = f();
  return k;
}
int h(int i, int j)
{
  int k = 0;
  if(i)
    k = f();
  else if (j)
    k = f();
  return k;
}

-- 
           Summary: Missed pure/const optimization
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: missed-optimization
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned 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=19827