http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
Jie Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #11 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-23 00:25:38
UTC ---
Author: jiez
Date: Wed Feb 23 00:25:34 2011
New Revision: 170422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170422
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/47763
* web.c (web_main): I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab 2011-02-16 18:26:31
UTC ---
There is no undefined behaviour if all calls to foo ignore the returned value.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #9 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 11:29:50 UTC
---
The clobber is optimized away in 172r.cprop3 because the register renaming in
171r.web breaks the def-use relationship between the clobber and the use in the
following instruction when -fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #7 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 08:49:46 UTC
---
Sorry, in my last comment, I meant to say "4.4 does NOT have such
initialization".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #6 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 08:32:14 UTC
---
I think we all know that dhrystone is a bad benchmark. But some users don't.
Which is more difficult: educating all users about that vs apply a simple patch
in GCC to remove the useless in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-16
08:08:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Yeah, normally we don't care about such cases. But this one comes from
> dhrystone. If it can be fixed cleanly, why not do it?
Then the whole dhrystone benc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #4 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 07:59:19 UTC
---
Yeah, normally we don't care about such cases. But this one comes from
dhrystone. If it can be fixed cleanly, why not do it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-16
07:48:24 UTC ---
Why should we care about code quality of function with undefined behavior?
Various optimizations add zero initialization or assume zero initialization of
undefined variables.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
--- Comment #2 from Jie Zhang 2011-02-16 07:42:45 UTC
---
OK. From this point, it's not empty. But if it returns an uninitialized value,
why bother initialize r0 to 0.
Btw, the patch in reviewing:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
12 matches
Mail list logo
