[Bug tree-optimization/115034] Missed optimization: reduntant store of identical value in the slot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115034 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||missed-optimization Last reconfirmed||2024-05-13 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- This would work if we'd duplicate the path from a = 0 to *outl = 1; return 0; but we don't early enough (on GIMPLE) and we don't do that on RTL until BB reorder where ther's no later pass doing this optimization either. On GIMPLE we see [local count: 1073741824]: *outl_4(D) = 0; if (c1_6(D) != 0) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] ... [local count: 965079152]: # a_1 = PHI <1(3), 0(2)> *outl_4(D) = a_1; return 0; but I think tracer doesn't consider paths to exit aka tail duplication, likely because on GIMPLE we force a single return block. There's also no partial redundant store elimination.
[Bug tree-optimization/115034] Missed optimization: reduntant store of identical value in the slot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115034 --- Comment #2 from XChy --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Note there is some memory model requirements here that I always forget if > this can happen or not. Hmm. Could you please provide some documents about the memory model of GCC or specific constraints about C language? The semantics of IR in the LLVM issue look good to me, since the store is non-volatile and non-atomic. But I'm not sure how it would be after lifting to C.
[Bug tree-optimization/115034] Missed optimization: reduntant store of identical value in the slot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115034 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note there is some memory model requirements here that I always forget if this can happen or not.