* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-24 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 4:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-24 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-24 01:51 -------
I should mention this shows up semi a lot in fortran code as what happens is
that t is not really a global variable but instead a local variable which is
passed to another function.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-24 1:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/25553] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-28 4:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-06 16:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 04:06 -------
We should be able to create a PHI for this case.
Hmm, maybe I don't understand load PRE but for some reason I thought it would
be able to do this case:
int *t;
int g(int);
int f(int tt)
{
int *t1 = t;
if (*t1)
*t1 = 2;
return g(*t1);
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-01-28 04:06:19
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-24 1:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/25553] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 4:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-06 16:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-04-03 19:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-06 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 16:19 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> We should be able to create a PHI for this case.
>
> Hmm, maybe I don't understand load PRE but for some reason I thought it would
> be able to do this case:
This load PRE issue has been fixed.
But the orginal testcase is not been fixed because it is a seperate
optimization.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 16:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-04-03 19:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-04-03 19:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-04-03 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-03 20:00 -------
*** Bug 31460 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-04-03 19:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-04-03 19:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-01 1:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-04-03 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-03 20:40 -------
Micha, this one is "similar" to hmmer
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |matz at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-04-03 19:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-01 1:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-23 5:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-01 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-01 01:18 -------
Note for the Cell this is even more important so you don't run into the LHS
hazzard.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2006-01-28 04:06:19 |2007-07-01 01:18:12
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-01 1:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-23 5:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-23 5:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 05:39 -------
*** Bug 35304 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xinliangli at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/25553] Missed removal of load
2005-12-24 1:46 [Bug tree-optimization/25553] New: Missed removal of load pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-23 5:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-07 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-07 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-07 01:44 -------
This turns out to be PRE for global decl issue as the following is done
correctly (at least on the trunk):
int g(int);
int f(int tt, int *t)
{
if (tt)
*t = 2;
else
*t = 3;
return g(*t);
}
--- CUT ---
f (tt, t)
{
int prephitmp.9;
int D.1182;
<bb 2>:
if (tt != 0)
goto <bb 3>;
else
goto <bb 4>;
<bb 3>:
*t = 2;
prephitmp.9 = 2;
goto <bb 5>;
<bb 4>:
*t = 3;
prephitmp.9 = 3;
<bb 5>:
D.1182 = g (prephitmp.9) [tail call];
return D.1182;
}
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23455 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25553
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread