https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #3 from Jiangning Liu ---
It is a stupid test, but it is simplified from a real application.
To solve even more complicated scenario, this simple case needs to be addressed
first.
If we change the case to be as below,
int f(void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #3)
> It is a stupid test, but it is simplified from a real application.
>
> To solve even more complicated scenario, this simple case needs to be
> addressed first.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
Unrolling 1024 iterations would increase code size a lot, so usually we don't
do that. 1024 is only an example. Without knowing we could eliminate most of
them, we don't really want to do loop unrolling, I gu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder if it makes sense for a production compiler to do this kind of
transformation. When presented with a program representation as SSA
on a CFG such transform would be quite ad-hoc or rather translatin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
