This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug optimization/11707] [3.4 Regression] [new unroller] constants not propagated in unrolled loop iterations with a conditional
- From: "rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Sep 2003 16:01:32 -0000
- Subject: [Bug optimization/11707] [3.4 Regression] [new unroller] constants not propagated in unrolled loop iterations with a conditional
- References: <20030729133436.11707.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11707
------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2003-09-29 16:01 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] [new unroller] constants
not propagated in unrolled loop iterations with a conditional
On 29 Sep 2003, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-29 12:31 -------
> This is just a pass ordering problem. Copy propagation in jump bypassing
> is being run between old and new loop unroller; so it acts on already unrolled
> loop with -fold-unroll-loops, but is not able to do anything senseful
> with -funroll-loops.
>
> On rtlopt-branch I have moved unroller before jump bypassing, this is why it
> does not reproduce there.
>
> On tree-ssa constant propagation is able to detect that a*=a is no-op in this
> case. Cool.
>
> Anyway, the attached patch fixes the problem. I believe moving jump bypassing
> after unroller should not harm anything.
The attached patch fixes the regression to the 3.3 behavior which is still
a regression from 2.95.3 (unnecessary imull).
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/