From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3486 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 18:01:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 3468 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 18:01:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_FN X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:01:06 +0000 From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/45579] Re-enable IPA-CP for "fn spec" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:27:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg01539.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45579 Martin Jambor changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-03-19 18:00:58 UTC --- Confirmed as recently as this February? How can that be? I have just checked that the testcase from PR 43665, comment #8 and verified the checkoptimal subroutine is cloned and constants are propagated into it, despite it having fnspec type attributes. If you have a testcase where you believe fnspec attributes are the reason for not performing IPA-CP, then please post it here, I'd certainly like to have a look. Having said that, it is certainly true that the new IPA-CP accomplish this by simply not deleting the newly-unused parameters, whereas arguably it should update the fnspec attributes instead. If you think that is something we should have a PR for, please change the description accordingly, or open a new PR. Otherwise I'll close this next week as a WORKSFORME. (On a related and personal note, I dislike the representation of the fnspec attributes very much, I think we should move it to the actual parm_decls or to the call graph or someplace, updating a string_cst just feels like a work-around.)