https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I realized I have some value-range patches in the tree where I ran into this
(besides the pending dwarf2out change). I'm now trying to reproduce on
r13-6384-ge3837b6f6c28a1 without changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't what happens in i386.cc more like:
void foo (long);
int data[128];
static int bar (int i, long j)
{
if (j >= -64 && j <= 64)
return data[j+64];
foo (j);
}
int baz (unsigned int j)
{
int k =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Estimating body: gen_rtx_CONST_INT.constprop/2274667
Known to be false: not inlined, op1,((unsigned long) #),(# + 64) > 128
size:6 time:4.533600 nonspec time:7.533600 loops with known
iterations:0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
But
void foo ();
int data[128];
static int bar (int i, int j)
{
if (j > -64 && j < 64)
return data[j+64];
foo ();
}
int baz (int j)
{
return bar (0, j);
}
seems to work fine with -O2 -fno-early
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So there's interesting IPA summary on gen_rtx_CONST_INT.constprop/2274667
find_slot_with_hash.constprop/2274668 function not considered for inlining
freq:0.49 loop depth: 0 size: 6 time: 15 calle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux
Keywords|
