From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104314 invoked by alias); 29 May 2019 16:01:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 104306 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2019 16:01:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:429 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:01:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A51D53078AD1; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-52.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.52]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A7EF19748; Wed, 29 May 2019 16:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4TG0u48010006; Wed, 29 May 2019 18:00:57 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x4TG0rZW010005; Wed, 29 May 2019 18:00:53 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 16:02:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jeff Law Cc: Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] final-value replacement from DCE Message-ID: <20190529160053.GV19695@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg01933.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:57:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-1.c execution test > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-5.c scan-assembler-not abort I admit I haven't looked at the details here, but wonder if the optimization couldn't be done only in the DCE passes post IPA, otherwise we risk behavior changes for __builtin_object_size. Jakub