[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-28 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #23 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22) > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > Standard: "Let D be a declaration of an ordinary identifier that provides a > >

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-25 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Standard: "Let D be a declaration of an ordinary identifier that provides a > means of designating an object P as a restrict-qualified

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-25 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #21 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #20) > (In reply to vries from comment #18) > > Aren't you supposed to also look at: > D: declaration of fpp > B: block of f > P: *fpp > accesses: *fp and *fp

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-25 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to vries from comment #18) Aren't you supposed to also look at: D: declaration of fpp B: block of f P: *fpp accesses: *fp and *fp2 etc ?

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-25 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 > > vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-25 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Sep 24 07:34:47 2015 New Revision: 228073 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228073&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-24 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/48885

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to vries from comment #14) > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13) > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-23 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13) > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 > > > > --- Comment #12 from vries

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-23 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 > > --- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-23 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > I'm testing the above simple fix and amend the comment. Consider the example with functions f and g I gave in comment 10. Using the patch from comme

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2015-09-22 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2013-08-28 Thread pa...@matos-sorge.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 Paulo J. Matos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@matos-sorge.com --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2011-05-05 Thread marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marc.glisse at normalesup

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

2011-05-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-05 14:50:48 UTC --- Because the standard was interpreted that way when implementing restrict support. And also because otherwise pointers based on a restrict pointer cannot be reliably tracked.