Re: patch to tree-profiling branch to do escape type analysis.

[Dorit Naishlos <DORIT at il dot ibm dot com>]

gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 19/01/2005 17:32:33:

> On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 17:21 +0200, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > > In a few of the cases, it hits the "PRE creates induction variable"
bug
> > > that i have a patch waiting for 4.1 for
> >
> > this indeed looks like what happens in vect-[56,60].c.
> > I guess these can be xfailed until the PRE PR is resolved.
>
> I could commit the  patch i have queued for 4.1, but i don't really see
> the point in adding a few more conflicts to the branch.
>

true

> >
> > > In the others, it hits the invariant phi blocks vectorization problem
> > > Dorit says she has a patch for.
> >
> > the other two are vect-[77,78].c, and it's not the invariant phi
problem
> > that they're hitting as far as I can see, but a different restriction
in
> > the vectorizer:
>
> It depends on what platform you are talking about :)
> On PPC, yes, they hit a slightly different pointer problem.
>

I see

> >
> >            /* Supported plus/minus expressions are of the form
> >              {address_base + offset}, such that address_base is of type
> >              POINTER/ARRAY, and offset is either an INTEGER_CST of type
> > POINTER,
> >              or it's not of type POINTER/ARRAY.
> >              TODO: swap operands if {offset + address_base}.  */
> >
> > (this is because in tree-profiling-branch we now get
> >  '(aint *) (off_17 * 4) + ib_19'
> > whereas we used to get
> >  'ib_16 + (aint *) (off_11 * 4)').
>
> Yup.
> Once i push down MEM_REF through the optimizers, you'll actually get
> just
> ib_19[off_17]
> Will that be okay?
>

that would be lovely

>
>
>