On 09/04/14 19:27, Easwaran Raman wrote:
I've attached the revised patch. Bootstrapped and no test regressions
on x86_64/linux with 4.9 branch. Ok for 4.9 branch? While the bug
doesn't show up in trunk, seems obvious that this should go to trunk
as well. Is it ok for trunk if tests pass?
Btw, is
I've attached the revised patch. Bootstrapped and no test regressions
on x86_64/linux with 4.9 branch. Ok for 4.9 branch? While the bug
doesn't show up in trunk, seems obvious that this should go to trunk
as well. Is it ok for trunk if tests pass?
Btw, is g++.dg/opt the right directory for the tes
On 09/02/14 12:52, Easwaran Raman wrote:
It turns out that the REG_EQUAL note is removed on a hoisted
instruction (relevant code is in dead_or_predicable in ifcvt.c) if the
source of the move instruction is not a function invariant. In this
case, the source is a function invariant (constant) and
It turns out that the REG_EQUAL note is removed on a hoisted
instruction (relevant code is in dead_or_predicable in ifcvt.c) if the
source of the move instruction is not a function invariant. In this
case, the source is a function invariant (constant) and so that
doesn't kick in. I don't understand
On 08/25/14 16:42, Easwaran Raman wrote:
This patch deletes REG_EQUAL note when a src register is replaced by a
constant in an assignment. This is to prevent spurious equivalences
between the constant and the expression in the REG_EQUAL note. In the
bug reported in PR 62146, an assignment in one
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> This patch deletes REG_EQUAL note when a src register is replaced by a
> constant in an assignment. This is to prevent spurious equivalences
> between the constant and the expression in the REG_EQUAL note. In the
> bug reported in PR 62146,
This patch deletes REG_EQUAL note when a src register is replaced by a
constant in an assignment. This is to prevent spurious equivalences
between the constant and the expression in the REG_EQUAL note. In the
bug reported in PR 62146, an assignment in one branch (which is
actually dead) of an IF st