public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/45791] Missed devirtualization
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-45791-4-gOF3tGZaII@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-45791-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-15 16:07:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> OK, main() code seems to optimize out that is an imrovement. Is it optimized
> away with your patch pre-IPA too?
Yes. Just before IPA, in fact.
>
> Derived() is also devirtualizable:
>
It could be done intraprocedurally if, unlike for automatically
allocated decls, we considered all calls as potentially changing the
dynamic type in unknown ways while doing the dynamic type change
detection. This then however becomes essentially the same thing as
devirtualization based on the constant folding, perhaps only more
complicated.
It could be optimized by IPA-CP if we can confirm that all callers are
automatically allocated (or that we generally have them under
control). This should be relatively easy, I will have a look at that.
Mainly because we may be able to widen scope of objects under our
control later.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-15 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-25 17:28 [Bug tree-optimization/45791] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-25 19:50 ` [Bug tree-optimization/45791] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 3:33 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 3:39 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 6:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-11 17:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-11 18:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 17:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 23:15 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 23:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 23:35 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 0:10 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 0:13 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 16:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-02-24 9:44 ` matthijs at stdin dot nl
2014-09-25 20:29 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-07 17:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-45791-4-gOF3tGZaII@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).