https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101419
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16) > Well, my point was to avoid pessimizing the VN done from cunrolli ;) > Of course any duplication / threading can improve __bos precision, > but then any transform also risks breaking it. Your example > is IMHO too artificial as good argument. Is that VN so important for cunrolli itself (I mean, what harm will be there if it is only VN simplified during FRE after it)? Does it affect anything but the number of statements that perhaps is used to determine whether to unroll completely or not? My testcase was artificial, sure, but I was worrying about short loops (say 2 iterations) doing some strcpy/memcpy etc. where having more precise object size would improve security. (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17) > Yes, I think it's needed for GIMPLE FE testcase correctness. Ok, will change it then to earlyobjsz and objsz then.
