public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/45605] Missed devirtualization
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100916122531.10982.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-45605-176@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 12:25 -------
Hmm, so do you have any idea where folding should be added for this particular
case?
It always seemed to me that it would make sense to add verifier that all
statements are folded (locally, not by looking at SSA graph) at optimization
pass boundaries. Tried it in the past and found a lot of issues that got fixed,
but we never got into agreeing on any policy here.
Missing optimizations just because we are stupid enough to forget call fold
when updating something seems bad IMO.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-16 12:25:30
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-16 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-09 1:14 [Bug c++/45605] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 1:17 ` [Bug c++/45605] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 8:43 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-09 11:03 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 11:33 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 11:36 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-10 9:42 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-15 18:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-15 19:10 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-15 22:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2010-09-16 8:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-16 12:26 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2010-09-16 12:31 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-16 12:49 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2010-09-16 12:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-16 14:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-16 16:00 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-16 16:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-17 14:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-18 21:25 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-20 15:49 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-20 15:54 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot 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=20100916122531.10982.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).