public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/30099] New: missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions)
@ 2006-12-07 5:55 dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2006-12-07 14:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30099] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-09 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu @ 2006-12-07 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The following 2 functions should be compiled to the same assembly.
This is one of Briggs' compiler benchmarks.
void vnum_test10(int *data)
{
int i = data[0];
int m = i + 1;
int j = data[1];
int n = j + 1;
data[2] = m + n;
if (i == j)
data[3] = (m - n) * 21;
}
void vnum_result10(int *data)
{
int i = data[0];
int m = i + 1;
int j = data[1];
int n = j + 1;
data[2] = m + n;
if (i == j)
data[3] = 0;
}
--
Summary: missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based
assertions)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30099
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/30099] missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions)
2006-12-07 5:55 [Bug tree-optimization/30099] New: missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions) dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2006-12-07 14:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-09 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-07 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-07 14:13 -------
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-12-07 14:13:46
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30099
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/30099] missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions)
2006-12-07 5:55 [Bug tree-optimization/30099] New: missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions) dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2006-12-07 14:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30099] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-09 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-09 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 06:32 -------
Basically what needs here is that if we get i == j, then we need to also add
asserts (in VRP) for all the uses of i and j, which makes it an almost useless
to do :).
There might be another bug about this filed by me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30099
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-09 6:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-12-07 5:55 [Bug tree-optimization/30099] New: missed value numbering optimization (conditional-based assertions) dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2006-12-07 14:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30099] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-09 6:33 ` 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).