* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-09 9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 8:36 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-09 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-09 09:34 -------
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-07-09 09:34:08
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-09 9:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32684] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 8:36 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 10:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 08:36 -------
I think this is a duplicate of #15473 (Sibcall optimization for libcalls).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15473 ***
--
chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-09 9:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32684] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 8:36 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 10:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 10:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 10:33 -------
It is not since this is not a libcall. At the tree level, we have a __builtin
function which has been marked for tailcall.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 10:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 10:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 13:12 ` chrbr 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 @ 2007-10-09 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 10:34 -------
Which is unlike the other case where we don't have a call at the tree level
that gets marked as tail called.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 10:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 13:12 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 13:15 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 13:12 -------
you are right, it's not a sibcall, my mistake.
But even at the tree level I still don't see the builtin marked as tailcall. On
a reduced case when entering find_tail_calls I have
D.1177_2 = __builtin_cos (phi_1(D));
D.1176_3 = COMPLEX_EXPR <D.1177_2, 0.0>;
return D.1176_3;
and this is not recognized as a tailcall a candidate because the
GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT operand 1 is a complex_expr, not a call.
note that in the absence of complex_expr, such as a builtin_memset. all is fine
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 13:12 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 13:15 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 13:15 -------
> you are right, it's not a sibcall, my mistake.
typo, I meant "libcall" not "sibcall"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass
2007-07-09 3:21 [Bug tree-optimization/32684] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 13:15 ` chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 17:59 -------
I get:
sincostmp.5 = __builtin_cexpi (phi);
REALPART_EXPR <<retval>> = REALPART_EXPR <sincostmp.5>;
IMAGPART_EXPR <<retval>> = IMAGPART_EXPR <sincostmp.5>;
return <retval>;
Which is created after the sincos pass as:
sincostmp.5_7 = __builtin_cexpi (phi_1(D));
D.1522_2 = REALPART_EXPR <sincostmp.5_7>;
D.1524_4 = IMAGPART_EXPR <sincostmp.5_7>;
REALPART_EXPR <<retval>> = D.1522_2;
IMAGPART_EXPR <<retval>> = D.1524_4;
Which we don't recombine the real/img parts into just one assignment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread