public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
[not found] <bug-29751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-09-23 22:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-17 22:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-09-23 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-23 22:09:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 18307 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
There is one bug in that patch which I have a fix for.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
[not found] <bug-29751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-23 22:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-17 22:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 9:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 10:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-17 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #18307|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-17 22:03:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 25847
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25847
more correct patch
An updated patch which is more correct than the previous patch and it works
correctly with MEM_REF which has an offset. Also moves some code to do
addition of the bit offset to a function.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
[not found] <bug-29751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-23 22:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-17 22:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-25 9:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 10:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-25 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-25 09:14:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 25847 [details]
> more correct patch
>
> An updated patch which is more correct than the previous patch and it works
> correctly with MEM_REF which has an offset. Also moves some code to do
> addition of the bit offset to a function.
I just noticed it does not have the fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44838 in it really.
Will retest and submit tomorrow.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
[not found] <bug-29751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-25 9:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-25 10:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-25 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Known to work| |4.6.0
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-25 10:30:28 UTC ---
The original testcase is fixed during early FRE since we have MEM_REF, and
DCE makes main empty even in 4.7.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-09 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-05 17:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-05 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 17:52 -------
Created an attachment (id=18307)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18307&action=view)
Patch which I am testing
This patch fixes the problem including a+1 and a+2 not aliasing each other.
It adds two testcases and removes a xfail on one.
It also fixes a bug in cfgexpand.c (update_alias_info_with_stack_vars) so that
it does not create SSA_NAMES with a define statement of NULL.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-09 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-05 17:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-09 2:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 02:35 -------
I have a simple patch (which needs some cleanups but it works).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|org |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-07 1:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-09 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-05 17:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-07 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-07 08:51 -------
Only if you extend refs_may_alias_p, as for pointers you have
p_2 = p_1 + 1;
*p_2
*p_1
and it doesn't follow def-use chains to see the pointer-plus to disambiguate
both pointer de-references. With arrays you see
a[0]
a[1]
which it handles fine. It also should handle
(*p_2)[0]
(*p_2)[1]
fine (if you convert p_! to (int *)[] first).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-14 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-07 1:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-07 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-07 01:28 -------
Hmm, if we change r to be an array, fre does the correct thing but shouldn't it
do the correct thing for the non array case too?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-14 1:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-14 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 1:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-14 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 21:21 -------
Related to PR34172, but not fixed. MEM_REF will get this right as we
effectively
have array refs on pointers there.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2007-06-11 00:30:03 |2008-03-14 21:21:32
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-14 1:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-11 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-14 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-11 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 00:30 -------
Confirmed, this is only a tree level missed optimization.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |alias, TREE
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-06-11 00:30:03
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1]
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-11-14 1:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-11-14 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 01:06 -------
This is a problem of our VOPs not having base+offset and has nothing to do with
restrict.
int f(int *r)
{
r[0] = 0;
r[1] = 0;
if(r[0]) foo();
}
is enough to reproduce the issue. Also I think there might be a couple dups of
this with respect of structs instead.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Missed optimization of |not optimizing access a[0] ,
|restrict pointer assigned |a[1]
|value |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-25 10:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-29751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-23 22:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-17 22:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 9:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 10:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2006-11-07 13:10 [Bug tree-optimization/29751] New: Missed optimization of restrict pointer assigned value burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-14 1:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29751] not optimizing access a[0] , a[1] pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-11 0:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-14 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 1:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-09 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-05 17:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).