[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

2016-10-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|U

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

2016-10-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- I think the only way we can improve this is tracking liveness with CLOBBERs (but that relies on CLOBBERs being present). Like walking dominators looking for CLOBBERs (or computing full data-flow for the des

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

2016-10-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||59813 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

2016-10-17 Thread vanyacpp at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 --- Comment #5 from Ivan Sorokin --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Related (maybe a dup really) to PR 59813. I agree. The linked bug is just another manifestation of the same issue. Regarding my question about excessive stack fr

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

2019-01-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|