--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-28 09:41
---
Last patch before I stopped working on enhancing DCE:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01978.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-09-27 09:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE
disabled
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:04
---
*
On 27 Sep 2007 09:08:17 -, rguenther at suse dot de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did wonder what optimized that before... (maybe a separate bug for
this is more appropriate)
Must_def cause the optimization to work IIRC. In fact this is the
reason why aggregate DSE was added was specifically
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-09-27 09:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
On 27 Sep 2007 09:08:17 -, rguenther at suse dot de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did wonder what optimized that before... (maybe a separate bug for
this is more
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-27 10:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=14254)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14254action=view)
restore DCE of killing defs
some ssa updating is broken in dce though:
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-27 13:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=14256)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14256action=view)
more complete patch to resture DCE of killing defs
It still breaks in some cases. With the unfortunate fact
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-27 13:42 ---
Diego, it sucks that we need to jump through hoops to get V_MUST_DEF back.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-27 13:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
On 27 Sep 2007 13:42:11 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diego, it sucks that we need to jump through hoops to get V_MUST_DEF back.
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-09-27 14:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE
disabled
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, dnovillo at google dot com wrote:
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-27 13:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression]
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-27 14:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
On 27 Sep 2007 14:01:18 -, rguenther at suse dot de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sort-of agree. Still DCE was able to handle tree-ssa/complex-4.c
before we
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-26 19:04 ---
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/complex-4.c: XFAIL.
is a regression then because the testcase was added back in 2006-02-18 (by me).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
12 matches
Mail list logo
