From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7351 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2009 11:51:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7336 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2009 11:51:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_13,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from kuber.nabble.com (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:51:02 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MZNyN-0002Y4-Cb for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:50:59 -0700 Message-ID: <24863416.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:53:00 -0000 From: pms To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: regarding optimization options in phase ordering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 Hi, We've a problem here. we were trying to use cc1 with & without -O option to verify the optimizations happening in our sample code. these r the list of outputs after each compilation without -O pms@Shiva:~/Desktop/Compilers/GCC/build/test$ ls 1.c 1.c.011t.ehopt 1.c.038t.release_ssa 1.c.001t.tu 1.c.012t.eh 1.c.123t.optimized 1.c.003t.original 1.c.013t.cfg 1.c.125t.blocks 1.c.004t.gimple 1.c.014t.cplxlower0 1.c.126t.final_cleanup 1.c.006t.vcg 1.c.015t.veclower 1.c.203t.statistics 1.c.007t.useless 1.c.021t.cleanup_cfg 1.s 1.c.010t.lower 1.c.023t.ssa a.out with -O 1.c 1.c.051t.ccp2 1.c.085t.sink 1.c.001t.tu 1.c.052t.forwprop2 1.c.086t.loop 1.c.003t.original 1.c.054t.alias 1.c.087t.loopinit 1.c.004t.gimple 1.c.055t.retslot 1.c.088t.copyprop4 1.c.006t.vcg 1.c.056t.phiprop 1.c.089t.dceloop1 1.c.007t.useless 1.c.057t.fre 1.c.090t.lim 1.c.010t.lower 1.c.058t.copyprop2 1.c.093t.sccp 1.c.011t.ehopt 1.c.059t.mergephi2 1.c.094t.empty 1.c.012t.eh 1.c.061t.dce1 1.c.099t.ivcanon 1.c.013t.cfg 1.c.062t.cselim 1.c.104t.cunroll 1.c.015t.veclower 1.c.063t.ifcombine 1.c.107t.ivopts 1.c.021t.cleanup_cfg 1.c.064t.phiopt1 1.c.108t.loopdone 1.c.023t.ssa 1.c.066t.ch 1.c.111t.reassoc2 1.c.024t.early_optimizations 1.c.068t.cplxlower 1.c.113t.dom2 1.c.025t.einline2 1.c.069t.sra 1.c.114t.phicprop2 1.c.026t.copyrename1 1.c.070t.copyrename3 1.c.115t.cddce2 1.c.027t.ccp1 1.c.071t.dom1 1.c.117t.dse2 1.c.028t.forwprop1 1.c.072t.phicprop1 1.c.118t.forwprop4 1.c.029t.addressables1 1.c.073t.dse1 1.c.119t.phiopt3 1.c.030t.esra 1.c.074t.reassoc1 1.c.121t.copyrename4 1.c.031t.copyprop1 1.c.075t.dce2 1.c.122t.uncprop 1.c.032t.mergephi1 1.c.076t.forwprop3 1.c.123t.optimized 1.c.033t.cddce1 1.c.077t.phiopt2 1.c.124t.nrv 1.c.034t.sdse 1.c.078t.objsz 1.c.125t.blocks 1.c.036t.switchconv 1.c.079t.ccp3 1.c.126t.final_cleanup 1.c.037t.profile 1.c.080t.copyprop3 1.c.203t.statistics 1.c.038t.release_ssa 1.c.081t.fab 1.s 1.c.048t.addressables2 1.c.082t.sincos a.out 1.c.049t.copyrename2 1.c.083t.crited But here, we tried to see the differences, until 1.c.027t.ccp1, the output for the following source 1.c #include int main() { int a=5; int b; b=a; printf("the number is :%d",b); } was 1.c.026t.copyrename1 ;; Function main (main) main () { int b; int a; : a_2 = b_1(D); return; } but in 1.c.027t.ccp1, the output doesnot contain the actual assignment b=a. ;; Function main (main) main () { int b; int a; : return; } We want to know, without b=a, how is it generating the final code for b=a Kindly help -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/regarding-optimization-options-in-phase-ordering-tp24863416p24863416.html Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.