This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Missed optimization in PRE?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Richard Guenther
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Bin.Cheng <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Following is the tree dump of 094t.pre for a test program.
>>>> Question is loads of D.5375_12/D.5375_14 are redundant on path <bb2,
>>>> bb7, bb5, bb6>,
>>>> but why not lowered into basic block 3, where it is used.
>>>> BTW, seems no tree pass handles this case currently.
>>> tree-ssa-sink.c should do this.
>> It does not work for me, I will double check and update soon.
> Well, "should" as in, it's the place to do it. ?And certainly the pass can sink
> loads, so this must be a missed optimization.
Curiously, it is said explicitly that "We don't want to sink loads from memory."
in tree-ssa-sink.c function statement_sink_location, and the condition is
if (stmt_ends_bb_p (stmt)
|| gimple_has_side_effects (stmt)
|| gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt)
|| (gimple_vuse (stmt) && !gimple_vdef (stmt))
&& TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt))) == BLKmode))
I haven't found any clue about this decision in ChangeLogs.