This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug middle-end/65534] tailcall not optimized away


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65534

--- Comment #3 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <aldot at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
> > > #ifndef OPTIMIZE_MANUALLY
> > > void setutent(void) {
> > >     ((void)0);
> > >     __setutent_unlocked();
> > >     ((void)0);
> > > }
> > > #else
> > > extern __typeof (__setutent_unlocked) setutent
> > >     __attribute__ ((alias ("__setutent_unlocked")));
> > > #endif
> > 
> > I do not think GCC can safely optimize this, becuase in the first
> > case &setutent != &__setutent_unlocked, wile in the optimized
> > case the addresses are equal.
> 
> Note that __setutent_unlocked is static, so i don't see how this specific
> case would prevent optimization?

gcc-6 stage1 passed.
Honza, please explain how'd that prevent optimization?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]