From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24059 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2005 20:29:43 -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 24046 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2005 20:29:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050808202941.24044.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dberlin at dberlin dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050808174631.23286.bonzini@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050808174631.23286.bonzini@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/23286] missed fully redundant expression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00901.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08 20:29 ------- Subject: Re: missed fully redundant expression On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 19:54 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08 19:54 ------- > Here is a stupid testcase which can be sped up by pulling the reduandant expressions up: > int ii; > static inline int f(int i, int ii) > { > return i/ ii; > } > > int h(int) __attribute__((pure,const)); > > int g(int i) > { > int j, j1 = i; > for (j = 0; j <1000; j++) > { > int ii1 = ii; > if (h(j)) > i = j1/ii1 + 2; > else > i = j1/ii1; > } > return i; > } > Yes, if we hoisted this, we would then pull it out of the loop. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286