public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com" <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: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:38:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100913113816.2297.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-34737-14966@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #6 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 11:38 ------- we get better code in the head. Both the cases [test1 and test2] produce the same piece of code: i.e for the following test case: void foo(char *p); void test1(char * p) { foo(p++); foo(p++); foo(p++); foo(p++); } void test2(char * p) { foo(p); p++; foo(p); p++; foo(p); p++; foo(p); p++; } we get: test1: push r28 push r29 /* prologue: function */ /* frame size = 0 */ /* stack size = 2 */ .L__stack_usage = 2 mov r28,r24 mov r29,r25 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,1 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,2 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,3 rcall foo /* epilogue start */ pop r29 pop r28 ret .size test1, .-test1 .global test2 .type test2, @function test2: push r28 push r29 /* prologue: function */ /* frame size = 0 */ /* stack size = 2 */ .L__stack_usage = 2 mov r28,r24 mov r29,r25 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,1 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,2 rcall foo mov r24,r28 mov r25,r29 adiw r24,3 rcall foo /* epilogue start */ pop r29 pop r28 ret .size test2, .-test2 -- abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abnikant dot singh at atmel | |dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34737
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-13 11:38 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 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 7:42 ` 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 [this message]
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=20100913113816.2297.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: linkBe 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).