--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 01:38 ---
Doesn't happen anymore on current mainline.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 03:27
---
Like Diego, I'd like to understand this PR better. Not with a guess, but with
a concrete explanation. If there's an overlapping live range, what range is
it? In order to understand these kinds of optimization P
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-11
19:43 ---
Here is an example which shows that IV-OPTs is not the cause and that we have
the same issue and
shows what is going wrong clearer:
int k(int);
int h(void);
long h1(void);
int f(int i)
{
int oldii;
in
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:27:17PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Ad
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
23:27 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Be more specific:
>
> 1- What exactly is being "messed up".
Read Zdenek's comment about renaming them.
> 2- Why is it wrong?
Because now we have "unresolvable overlapping live
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:07:24PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Ad
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
23:07 ---
Both DOM and copyprop are messing this up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
22:28 ---
Actually, ivopts do not produce any "unresolvable overlapping live ranges".
It does not change life range of j_8 at all, and only replaces the variable
i by more suitable strength reduced version ivtmp.6. N
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
20:33 ---
Anyways here is a testcase which should not produce a constant after the loop:
int bar (unsigned int);
unsigned int
foo (void)
{
unsigned int i, j;
for (i = 1; i < 30; i++)
{
j = 2 + 3*i;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
20:32 ---
Shouldn't we know what value j has at this point?
# j_3 = PHI ;
:;
return j_3;
92 - 3?
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
17:48 ---
Confirmed and has been a bug since "3.5.0 20040909".
--
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
14:14 ---
This is IVopts producing unresolvable overlapping live ranges again:
t.c.t56.cunroll:
foo ()
{
unsigned int pretmp.1;
unsigned int pretmp.0;
unsigned int j;
unsigned int i;
unsigned int D.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||19038
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21488
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10
13:29 ---
Actually, GCC 4.0 has this problem also.
GCC 3.3:
foo:
pushq %rbp
movl$1, %ebp
pushq %rbx
movl$5, %ebx
subq$8, %rsp
.p2align 4,,7
.L6
17 matches
Mail list logo
