http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 17 17:50:10 2014
New Revision: 206723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206723root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/57904
* passes.def: Reorder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
With the patch in comment 9, gfortran.dg/class_48.f90 no longer fails and I
don't see any regression. The warning for the test in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
But you can always create testcases (in C/C++ etc.) that will hit this
warning, so while the FE change is possible, we need to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
So a quick prototype which reuses the infrastructure from the
phi-only-propagator cleans things up quite nicely.
Given this block after substitute_and_fold does its thing:
bb 2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
*** Bug 58746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
For the FE change, I guess most important are benchmark results,
doesn't it slow down important benchmarks?
AFAICT the answer is not at least for the gfortran test suite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Dominique, thanks for verifying that 58746 is a duplicate. I was wondering
about that.
Richi, we've known for a long time (since the early 90s) that running CSE soon
after loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Whoops, message for Richi was meant for a different BZ.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I wonder if we could refactor propgate_rhs_into_lhs from tree-ssa-dom.c to help
here. It was designed to handle precisely this kind of problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 31485
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31485action=edit
change code generation for simple DO-loops
This not yet fully tested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Bernd,
It's certainly good if the test outside the loop and inside the loop is the
same. It's a lot more likely to be discovered to be redundant earlier. I have
no idea how it would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
With the patch in comment 9, gfortran.dg/class_48.f90 no longer fails and I
don't see any regression. The warning for the test in pr58746 comment 2 is also
fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We have:
bb 2:
ubound.0_3 = 0;
size.1_4 = ubound.0_3 + 1;
size.1_5 = MAX_EXPR size.1_4, 0;
_6 = size.1_5 * 4;
_7 = (character(kind=4)) _6;
_8 = MAX_EXPR _7, 1;
sizes_9 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
17 matches
Mail list logo
