public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "sandra at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/28685] Multiple comparisons are not simplified
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 02:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100507023201.14943.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-28685-1649@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #10 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-05-07 02:32 -------
I've been working on a patch that fixes the original reported problem by adding
a little logic to tree-ssa-reassoc.c to make it look for places where it can
use combine_comparisons. Note that this test case does not involve an "if" or
require any particular CFA, just straightforward expression simplification. My
sense is that the test cases that do involve "if"s and/or require flow analysis
are in fact different bugs that require different fixes. (In fact, 28691 looks
more like an RTL-level optimization to me, maybe even backend-specific.) So,
is it really useful to lump them all together as duplicates for tracking
purposes? Or am I totally barking up the wrong tree here?
--
sandra at codesourcery dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sandra at codesourcery dot
| |com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28685
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-07 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-10 18:15 [Bug middle-end/28685] New: " uros at kss-loka dot si
2006-08-10 18:18 ` [Bug middle-end/28685] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 15:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-06 16:34 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2008-10-12 20:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-24 9:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-24 9:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24 7:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24 9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-17 10:25 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2010-05-07 2:32 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com [this message]
2010-05-08 3:44 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2010-05-08 15:54 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-24 13:22 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2010-05-25 8:12 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-06-01 2:24 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2010-06-08 18:16 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-28685-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-12 1:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-05 12:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-02-06 21:37 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-04-22 12:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-04-22 12:46 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-04-22 12:48 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2014-10-31 4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.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=20100507023201.14943.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).