From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-376647-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27382 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2011 10:02:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 27372 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2011 10:02:39 -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; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:02:27 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51506] Function cloning misses constant struct
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:04:00 -0000
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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
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: Status Last reconfirmed CC Ever Confirmed Severity
Message-ID: <bug-51506-4-xoWane9LwK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51506-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51506-4@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: 2011-12/txt/msg01213.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51506

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011-12-12
                 CC|                            |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-12 10:02:22 UTC ---
We currently do not easily see that they are constant:

  D.1599.a = 6;
  D.1599.b = 1;
  D.1603_1 = compute_dint (D.1599, 1);

but we could in theory improve our IL by not forcing the aggregate argument
to a temporary during gimplification of

  rv = compute_dint (<<< Unknown tree: compound_literal_expr
    struct dint D.1599 = {.a=6, .b=1}; >>>, 1) + rv;

but simply allow !is_gimple_reg_type CONSTRUCTORs that are TREE_CONSTANT,
thus have

  D.1603_1 = compute_dint ({.a=6, .b=1}, 1);

in the IL.  That would still require ipa-cp to handle aggregates though.

The above would also mean that

  D.1599 = {.a=6, .b=1};

would be valid GIMPLE (I see no good reason to disallow this either).