From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25327 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 07:03:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25277 invoked by uid 61); 27 Nov 2001 07:03:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011127070349.25276.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ottoni@ic.unicamp.br From: rth@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailer: gnatsweb 2.9.2 Subject: Re: optimization/4919: gcse inhibits loop optimization X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: gcse inhibits loop optimization State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended State-Changed-By: rth State-Changed-When: Mon Nov 26 23:03:48 2001 State-Changed-Why: GCSE did exactly what it was supposed to do -- the expression I+1, which appears twice in the body of the loop, is partially redundant with the increment of I at the end of the loop. This isn't really a problem with GCSE, but with the extreme lameness of our loop optimizer. Hopefully we'll have time to rewrite it from scratch for gcc 3.2; Jan Hubicka has already volunteered to try. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=4919&database=gcc