[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2024-05-24 Thread user202729 at protonmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 user202729 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||user202729 at protonmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-06 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > --- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov --- > malloc and friends modify 'errno'

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-06 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov --- malloc and friends modify 'errno' on failure, so in they would have to be special-cased for alias analysis.

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-06 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aagarwa at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-06 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > --- Comment #11 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk > --- > (In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-05 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #12 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- I notice that GCC also does not optimize this case: https://godbolt.org/z/7oGqjqqz4

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-05 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #11 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10) > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > > > --- Comment #9 from

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-05 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > --- Comment #9 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-05 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #9 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > (In reply to Pontakorn Prasertsuk from comment #7) > > For the LLVM IR code of the snippet I provided, Clang's alias analysis can > > prove that `new`

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Pontakorn Prasertsuk from comment #7) > For the LLVM IR code of the snippet I provided, Clang's alias analysis can > prove that `new` call has no side effect to other memory location. This is

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-06-02 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #7 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- For the LLVM IR code of the snippet I provided, Clang's alias analysis can prove that `new` call has no side effect to other memory location. This is indicated by `noalias` keyword at the return

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-31 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 May 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-30 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #5 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > We don't even optimize: > ``` > struct MyClass > { > unsigned long long arr[128]; > }; > > [[gnu::noipa]] > void sink(void *m); > void gg(MyClass ,

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-30 Thread ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #4 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Ick - convoluted C++. We end up with > > void ff (struct MyClass & obj) > { > vector(2) long unsigned int vect_SR.16; > vector(2) long unsigned

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- We don't even optimize: ``` struct MyClass { unsigned long long arr[128]; }; [[gnu::noipa]] void sink(void *m); void gg(MyClass , MyClass *b) { MyClass c = a; *b = c; sink(b); } ``` As I

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Ever

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

2023-05-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Ick - convoluted C++. We end up with void ff (struct MyClass & obj) { vector(2) long unsigned int vect_SR.16; vector(2) long unsigned int vect_SR.15; vector(2) long unsigned int vect_SR.14; void