From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-380313-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7055 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2012 10:45:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 7045 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2012 10:45:33 -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; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:45:20 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51879] Missed tail merging with non-const/pure calls
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:59:00 -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: UNCONFIRMED
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-51879-4-JCnLJkjGHn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51879-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51879-4@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: 2012-01/txt/msg01988.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879

--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-18 10:45:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm afraid a lot would break.  It really depends on what you use VN for and on
> what code.
> If you have:
>   D.12345_1 = bar (7);
>   D.12346_2 = bar (7);
> and bar isn't const/pure call, then if VN equivalences D.12345_1 and D.12346_2,
> it is wrong.  Of course if you have:
> <bb7>:
>   D.12345_1 = bar (7);
>   goto bb9;
> <bb8>:
>   D.12346_2 = bar (7);
> <bb9>:
>   D.12347_3 = PHI <D.12345_1(7), D.12346_2(8)>
> (this case), you could VN them the same.

Yes, but not for

  D.12345_1 = bar (7);
  D.12346_2 = bar (7);

so you can't really value-number the calls the same.  As we are working
on SSA SCCs and not on a CFG (and thus do not do predicated value-numbering)
that ability is useless.