From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F331E385802A; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:21:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F331E385802A From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102452] Structs with flexible array members are not optimized on stack Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:21:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:21:19 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102452 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102452 >=20 > Andrew Pinski changed: >=20 > What |Removed |Added > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- > Severity|normal |enhancement > Component|ipa |tree-optimization >=20 > --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- > Oh it is just esra (and SRA) rejecting the struct: > Rejected (3268): zero structure field size: ret >=20 > Rejected (3311): zero structure field size: ret > Rejected (3309): zero structure field size: D.3309 >=20 > I had read the dump order incorrectly and such. Yeah - not sure why exactly it execuses itself for !DECL_SIZE fields, but well. Something to improve. (just ignore those fields)=