From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-397419-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10615 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2012 22:49:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 10604 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2012 22:49:50 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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, 26 Jul 2012 22:49:38 +0000
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/53787] Possible IPA-SRA / IPA-CP improvement
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:49:00 -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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: steven at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-53787-4-VQ6q97zqVa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53787-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53787-4@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: 2012-07/txt/msg02005.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787

Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |steven at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-26 22:49:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Now if we could somehow propagate &10 into the actual argument of the
> call statement, IPA-CP should pick it up and propagate it into the
> caller.  Another alternative is to construct an aggregate jump
> function for it when we have them.  I'll keep this testcase in mind
> when working on them.

Shouldn't IPA-CP be able to do this already? It does appear to handle
CONST_DECLs already...