From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15005 invoked by alias); 7 May 2010 02:32:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 14944 invoked by uid 48); 7 May 2010 02:32:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 02:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100507023201.14943.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/28685] Multiple comparisons are not simplified In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "sandra at codesourcery dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2 ------- 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