From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20223 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2005 01:08:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19930 invoked by uid 48); 23 Apr 2005 01:08:19 -0000 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050423010819.19927.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "law at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041204193149.18832.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20041204193149.18832.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18832] missed jump threading with || X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg03189.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 01:08 ------- The threading issues in f0 have been addressed. Some simple code hoisting would make f0 slightly better from a code size standpoint, but probably wouldn't help runtime. The lameness in f1 isn't really a jump threading problem. We have a merge point before the second pair of tests which is going to make it damn near impossible to track the values well enough to optimize this code. This isn't a jump threading problem. f2 and f3 look good. Basically there's no jump threading issues left here. (In reply to comment #1) > Oh and this one too: > int f3(int c,int a, int b) > { > if (a== 0||b==0) c+=2; > return c; > } -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18832