https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36ec4a3c927bd2cc212a7f331ad842cd90eb5283
commit r12-4597-g36ec4a3c927bd2cc212a7f331ad842cd90eb5283
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:005ebe1c07843e6312cd70523945fa1d729e7253
commit r12-4595-g005ebe1c07843e6312cd70523945fa1d729e7253
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I get one regression:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36902.c (test for warnings, line 47)
I filed PR 102864 and will change the testcase so we don't run into that issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have a new patch in testing that replaces patch 4 and uses
simple_dce_from_worklist instead which moves of the detection of dead code to
already common code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Created attachment 51614 [details]
> Patch which I am testing
>
> The previous file had an extra (older) patch in it.
I should add some stats for this, oh we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51613|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 51613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51613&action=edit
Current patchset which I am testing
Here is my current patch set which fixes this. It is 4 patches. The fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> Also, if we did have cleaner IL, we could probably tweak the threader to
> elide the call to foo() earlier. That is, without having to resort to help
> from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #8)
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 11:37 pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <
> gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 11:37 pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Because:
> if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because:
if (d_11 > 1)
goto ; [59.00%]
else
goto ; [41.00%]
[local count: 391808389]:
[local count: 955630225]:
# iftmp.1_6 = PHI <0(3), 2(4)>
If the phi node was removed, the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> There is a missed optimization at the gimple level for sure.
>
>
> if (d_11 > 1)
> goto ; [59.00%]
> else
> goto ; [41.00%]
>
>[local count:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> This seems to be some limitation of the RTL optimizers in the presence of
> more aggressive jump threading.
But the more aggressive jump threading is actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a missed optimization at the gimple level for sure.
if (d_11 > 1)
goto ; [59.00%]
else
goto ; [41.00%]
[local count: 391808389]:
[local count: 955630225]:
# iftmp.1_6 = PHI <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
This seems to be some limitation of the RTL optimizers in the presence of more
aggressive jump threading.
Neither the old backward threader nor the old VRP threader could find any
threading possibilities:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102703
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] Dead Code |[12 Regression] Dead Code
20 matches
Mail list logo
