https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 23, 2020 6:00:02 PM GMT+01:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
>
>--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov
>---
>(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #18)
> represent all accesses indirectly via pointers
Would that be necessary in presence of a verifier that ensures that all
references are dominated by births?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #18 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #17)
> I think part of the problem is trying to make "deaths" explicit via CLOBBERs
> without making "births" also explicit in the IR.
Yes, that's basically the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Even before IVOPTs we have an access to in[] "after" the clobber. I think the
fact that there are multiple instances of in is not well represented and
for the testcase at hand jump-threading essentially
