public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/60315] [4.8/4.9 Regression] template constructor switch optimization
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:00:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60315-4-PeItZs1urh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60315-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315

--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
> 
> --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> The compile time hog issue is fixed now.  We still fix the predicates for
> switch statement (to get pass NOP_EXPR) since it seems very common pattern. 
> Richard: I suppose we can't fold away the NOP_EXPR easily earlier?

forwprop would do that, but the enum is unsigned int while the
switch value is int and thus simplify_gimple_switch bails out
because the conversion is not value-preserving.

So the frontend would need to be changed here or we need to
"complicate" the transform by not looking at the type of
the existing switch argument but instead by looking at the
actual switch label values to see if their value would be
preserved.  But yes, that enum -> int conversion asked for
by the C++ standard seems to be common that this should be
worth the trouble.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-03-26  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-22  5:53 [Bug c++/60315] New: " garcia.espinosa.jr at gmail dot com
2014-02-22  9:00 ` [Bug ipa/60315] [4.8/4.9 Regression] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-22 13:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 11:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 11:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 13:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 13:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 13:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-24 14:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-27  9:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-18 11:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-24 22:44 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-24 23:01 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-24 23:35 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-25  5:44 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26  2:12 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26  2:20 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26  9:00 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2014-03-26 21:58 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2014-03-27  7:30 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-05-22  9:06 ` [Bug ipa/60315] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:28 ` [Bug ipa/60315] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-24 11:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-24 11:42 ` [Bug ipa/60315] [4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-60315-4-PeItZs1urh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).