public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Tree loop optimizer does worse job than RTL loop optimizer
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060718170353.30442.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-20643-3107@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #16 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-07-18 17:03 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Tree loop
 optimizer does worse job than RTL loop optimizer

anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp wrote:
> ------- Comment #15 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp  2006-07-18 16:53 -------
> (In reply to comment #14)
>> This is because it's an incoming parameter, and as a result, this
>> doesn't look at all like an array access, but just a random pointer access.
>>
>> I have no plans to make the alias analysis algorithm reconstruct array
>> indexes from random pointer arithmetic.
> 
> I do not think reconstructing array indexes are needed,
> but is it hard to tell that *(a+0) never be an alias of *(a+1) ?

We already do say this when we know the offsets.  The point is that
without reconstructing the array indexes, we'd have to follow use-def
chains for *every single pointer access* on *every single operand
update*, in order to attempt to get the offsets and disambiguate them.

This is incredibly slow.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20643


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-07-18 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-20643-3107@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-03 15:10 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1 " sje at cup dot hp dot com
2005-10-31  2:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31  3:43 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-24  0:26 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-18 14:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-04-28 14:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-25  2:35 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-16 13:21 ` anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp
2006-07-16 13:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-17 11:55 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-17 13:34 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
2006-07-18 16:53 ` anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp
2006-07-18 17:04 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org [this message]
2007-02-14  9:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11  0:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-04 17:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 16:51 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.2 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-30 15:43 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060718170353.30442.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).