From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-363963-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4675 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2011 10:10:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 4664 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2011 10:10:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:10:11 +0000
From: "sgunderson at bigfoot dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/49872] Missed optimization: Could coalesce neighboring memsets
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgunderson at bigfoot dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49872-4-Hnt3kbr9zS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49872-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49872-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:10:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg02447.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49872

--- Comment #2 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-07-28 10:09:51 UTC ---
I'm not sure if I've seen exactly this construction in real-world code, but
I've certainly seen examples of the hybrid I sketched out (looking at one was
what motivated me to file the bug), ie. something like:

struct S {
    int f[1024];
    int g;
};

void func(struct S* s)
{
    memset(s->f, 0, sizeof(s->f));
    s->g = 0;
}

which I would argue should be rewritten to

void func(struct S* s)
{
    memset(s->f, 0, sizeof(s->f) + sizeof(s->g));
}

I'd argue that programmers should not be doing this kind of optimization
themselves, since it's very prone to break when changing the structure,
especially as alignment etc. comes into play.