This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre6.c testcase

From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:14:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre6.c testcase
References: <20100531000435.GD1373@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <5213D07B-BEB7-4836-8B4D-F2082474B368@gmail.com>

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 30, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> pure-const is now too smart to mark foo as pure that leads the testcase to
>> be optimized
>> too early. ?Fixed thus. OK?
>
> Huh? How can foo be consider const. It has a huge side effect of not
> returning normally (well at all).

It is considered looping pure/const which preserves that side-effect.

Can you instead of the current patch adjust the dump-scanning
to scan for 1 elimination and additionally for 2 insertions?

Thanks,
Richard.

References:
- Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre6.c testcase
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Fix gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre6.c testcase
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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