Re: [PATCH] Improve tree-ssa-tail-merge for switches (PR tree-optimization/71520)

2016-06-14 Thread Martin Liška
On 06/14/2016 10:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > I'd like to postpone this until tail-merging got rid of its SCCVN > dependency (the proposed merge with the ICF machinery). Hi. I'm going to continue on that at the very beginning of next month. Martin

Re: [PATCH] Improve tree-ssa-tail-merge for switches (PR tree-optimization/71520)

2016-06-14 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > Cross-jumping at GIMPLE level gives up e.g. because there are any labels > at the beginning of the block (which is always the case for bbs referenced > from switches). While labels for non-local goto as well as computed goto > are hard to

[PATCH] Improve tree-ssa-tail-merge for switches (PR tree-optimization/71520)

2016-06-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! Cross-jumping at GIMPLE level gives up e.g. because there are any labels at the beginning of the block (which is always the case for bbs referenced from switches). While labels for non-local goto as well as computed goto are hard to handle, after all the edges are then EDGE_ABNORMAL that