From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-408830-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4806 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2012 09:24:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 4712 invoked by uid 55); 5 Dec 2012 09:23:57 -0000
From: "richard.guenther at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/51233] [ipa-iterations] running multiple passes of early IPA on zlib produces more optimal code
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:24:00 -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: lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: richard.guenther at gmail 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-51233-4-OaRle15O26@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51233-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51233-4@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
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: 2012-12/txt/msg00438.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233

--- Comment #6 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com <richard.guenther at gmail dot com> 2012-12-05 09:23:56 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, matt at use dot net
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233
>
> --- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett <matt at use dot net> 2012-12-04 20:35:09 UTC ---
> ping? if you're more comfortable with relegating multiple passes to LTO, I
> think that's a good starting point. we can wait for a per-unit C++ template
> case to come up after that's in.

Yes, multiple LTO passes is what I think should be done (or alternatively
if one really dislikes this better processing of cgraph SCCs during early
optimizations like I outlined in some e-mail response to the original
patches).  But the LTO approach should be more powerful anyway.

> is there anything you'd like me to do to get this moving again?

Produce patches for review?

;)