From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7211 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 14:56:00 -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 7194 invoked by uid 71); 19 Feb 2003 14:56:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030219145600.7193.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Andy Freeman" Subject: Re: optimization/7269: Inlining may not eliminate unnecessary tests and branches. Reply-To: "Andy Freeman" X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00916.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/7269; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Andy Freeman" To: , , , , , Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/7269: Inlining may not eliminate unnecessary tests and branches. Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:43:40 -0800 I'm no longer in a position to produce the code. The specific example looked like: struct foo { int f(int i) { ... // no branches or returns if( 0 = i ) { return 17; } ... } }; int bar(...) { foo f; if( f.f(0) ) { // the branch in f was eliminated by constant propagation .... // but the branch testing f's return value was not. } } ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 1:26 AM Subject: Re: optimization/7269: Inlining may not eliminate unnecessary tests and branches. > Synopsis: Inlining may not eliminate unnecessary tests and branches. > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: ebotcazou > State-Changed-When: Wed Feb 19 09:26:14 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > Sample code requested for 5 months. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7269