This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/45522] PRE misses oppurtunity for statement folding.
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:06:16 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/45522] PRE misses oppurtunity for statement folding.
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-45522-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45522
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-28 20:41:46 |2011-08-09 20:41:46
Summary|VRP misses oppurtunity for |PRE misses oppurtunity for
|statement folding. |statement folding.
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-09 15:05:44 UTC ---
comment #3 works now:
Folding statement: D.2751_6 = tree_code_type[D.2750_5];
Folded into: D.2751_6 = 2;
I can't see how comment #4 should work - in VRP1 we end up with
<bb 2>:
goto <bb 4>;
<bb 3>:
D.2737_5 = BIT_FIELD_REF <*tinfo_4(D), 8, 0>;
D.2738_6 = D.2737_5 & 1;
fancy_abort ("../../gcc/cp/rtti.c", 1529, &__FUNCTION__);
ix_11 = ix_1 + 1;
<bb 4>:
# ix_1 = PHI <0(2), ix_11(3)>
D.2742_3 = fundamentals[ix_1];
if (D.2742_3 != 0B)
goto <bb 3>;
else
goto <bb 5>;
<bb 5>:
return;
so I suppose an earlier patch already did the folding.
I can confirm comment #5.
Removing VRP reference from the summary.