public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:24:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94779-4-NaSKaKKLff@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94779-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779

--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Related PR is PR89059 though, while we can have a useful range info already in
the early opts from evrp, in many cases we can get much better info after
inlining.  So, if we during the first switchconv pass could just perform
analysis and stick on the gswitch info that e.g. the inlining cost computations
could use and only perform lowering later, or if we could perform the
conversion right away but in some way note for the second switchconv pass that
this and this came from switch conversion and that if the range info is
narrowed second switchconv pass should attempt to adjust it, it would be really
appreciated.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-06 15:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-27  0:40 [Bug tree-optimization/94779] New: " gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-04-27  4:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/94779] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-27  4:35 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-04-27  4:38 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-04-27  4:46 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-27  5:47 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-04-27  6:15 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-04-27  6:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-27  6:51 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-05-06 15:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-06 15:12 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-06 15:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-12-15 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-15 15:02 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2020-12-17 13:36 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-17 13:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-17 13:57 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-17 14:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-17 16:38 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2020-12-18 12:07 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-18 12:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-18 12:30 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-18 14:35 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2021-08-16 12:39 ` marxin 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-94779-4-NaSKaKKLff@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).