This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/33562] [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:01:17 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/33562] [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
- References: <bug-33562-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- 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] aggregate DSE disabled
>
> On 27 Sep 2007 13:42:11 -0000, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
> <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Diego, it sucks that we need to jump through hoops to get V_MUST_DEF "back".
>
> Unless we can prove that it is impossible to implement DSE any other
> way, I would prefer to keep virtual SSA as simple as possible. It's
> meant as a safety net and a "good enough" UD web for passes that do
> not care for being too aggressive.
I sort-of agree. Still DCE was able to handle tree-ssa/complex-4.c
before we removed V_MUST_DEF. Which is what I'm trying to get back.
As "good enough" UD web it would be nice to have only single VDEFs on
stores (I don't care for clobbers at call sites). Though finding the
optimal static partitioning to ensure this is probably hard?
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562