From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9281 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2014 07:57:09 -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 9267 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2014 07:57:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:57:07 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC01AD62; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:57:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: Jeff Law cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix parts of PR61607 In-Reply-To: <53AB14C0.1010606@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <53AB14C0.1010606@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg02098.txt.bz2 On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/25/14 08:05, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > This removes restrictions in DOM cprop_operand that inhibit > > some optimizations. The volatile pointer thing is really realy > > old and no longer necessary while the loop-depth consideration > > is only valid for loop-closed PHI nodes (but we're not in > > loop-closed SSA in DOM) - the coalescing is handled in out-of-SSA > > phase by inserting copies appropriately. > > > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok? > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > > 2014-06-25 Richard Biener > > > > PR tree-optimization/61607 > > * tree-ssa-dom.c (cprop_operand): Remove restriction on > > propagating volatile pointers and on loop depth. > The first hunk is OK. > > I thought we had tests for the do not copy propagate out of a loop nest in the > suite. Did you check that tests in BZ 19038 still generate good code after > this change? If we still generate good code for those tests, then this hunk > is fine too. I have applied the first hunk and will investigate further. Testing didn't show any issue and I know how to retain the check but not cause the missed optimization shown in PR61607. Richard.