public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080111113309.15649.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-34737-14966@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-11 11:33 -------
No what happened with 4.0 is rather DOM would prop x+1 for each x.

Really this comes down to scheduling of instructions and moving them closer to
their usage.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|4.0.4                       |
            Summary|Inefficient gimplification  |Scheduling of post-modified
                   |of post-modified function   |function arguments is not
                   |arguments, TER doesn't do   |good
                   |its work                    |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34737


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-11 11:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-11  8:58 [Bug c/34737] New: missed optimization, foo(p); p++ is better then foo(p++) wvangulik at xs4all dot nl
2008-01-11  8:59 ` [Bug c/34737] " wvangulik at xs4all dot nl
2008-01-11 10:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Inefficient gimplification of post-modified function arguments, TER doesn't do its work rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-11 11:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2009-06-24  7:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24  9:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-13 11:38 ` abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com

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=20080111113309.15649.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).