https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f99d7d669eaa2830eb5878df4da67e77ec791522
commit r13-5106-gf99d7d669eaa2830eb5878df4da67e77ec791522
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Oh, I didn't notice it's P1 :) Then sure, send it for this release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
@Richi: Please send the patch for switch conversion in the next stage 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
> As a hack I've removed them manually:
> FOR_EACH_BB_FN (bb, cfun)
> {
> gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_after_labels (bb);
> if (!gsi_end_p (gsi) && gimple_code (gsi_stmt (gsi)) == GIMPLE_PREDICT)
> gsi_rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> However, the CFG is not collapsed and thus it fails due to:
>
> bool
> bit_test_cluster::is_beneficial (unsigned count, unsigned uniq)
> {
> return (((uniq ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like a general CFG optimization if we have N forwarders to a PHI with the
same value then we can merge them to one (it's enough to have a single
forwarder which we can use as the remaining one even).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, comparing that to
int firewall3(const uint8_t *restrict data) {
const uint16_t dst_port = *((const uint16_t *)data + 32);
switch (dst_port) {
case 15: return 1;
case 23: return 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #8 from Коренберг Марк ---
Okay, but why switch-case is not handled using fast implementation using masks
(when difference between smallest and biggest integer <=64 ?
See the first function in my first message where it works as expe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> this code should not be treated as if-else-if-else-if.
Why? It's an equivalent representation as all ifs have a return statement. One
another equivalent representation is:
switch (dst_port)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #5 from Коренберг Марк ---
Not only -s problem. I think -O3 in gcc 12.2 will run faster than -O3 in gcc 13
(for this case). this code should not be treated as if-else-if-else-if. gcc 12
does its job right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107767
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
So the optimization is enabled after r13-1184-g57424087e82db140 where we newly
convert if-else-if series to switch, that's later converted by switch
conversion pass to the array lookup.
Now the question is w
17 matches
Mail list logo
