From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-287089-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8827 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2009 09:08:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 8370 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2009 09:07:58 -0000
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:08:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20090624090758.8369.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-34737-14966@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good
In-Reply-To: <bug-34737-14966@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg01741.txt.bz2



------- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de  2009-06-24 09:07 -------
Subject: Re:  Scheduling of post-modified function
 arguments is not good

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-24 07:42 -------
> Couldn't this be fixed also by changing the initial gimplification from:
> 
>   p.0 = p;
>   p = p + 1;
>   foo (p.0);
> 
> to:
> 
>   p.0 = p;
>   foo (p.0);
>   p = p + 1;

Probably yes.

Richard.


-- 


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