This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/34265] Missed optimizations
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Nov 2007 11:13:06 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34265] Missed optimizations
- References: <bug-34265-12313@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-29 11:13 -------
Subject: Re: Missed optimizations
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I am not sure to understand your patch in comment #17. I have already in
> gcc/passes.c (after your patch in comment #5):
>
> NEXT_PASS (pass_merge_phi);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_vrp);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_dce);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_tree_loop_init);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_complete_unroll);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_tree_loop_done);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_cselim);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_dominator);
> /* The only const/copy propagation opportunities left after
>
> do you mean that I should change
>
> NEXT_PASS (pass_complete_unroll);
>
> to
>
> NEXT_PASS (pass_complete_unrolli);
>
> ? I am assuming my interpretation is correct and rebuild gcc right now.
Yes, that's correct - I did too much copy&paste there :)
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34265