------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 22:37 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I think the issue here is more that we should look for a way to optimize this > early on. I'm guessing it's one of the ce[123] passes that cleans this up for > you on your RISCy machine? IMHO it would be better even in your case to nuke > dumb code like this in GIMPLE (enabling other optimizations, etc.).
Predicated value-numbering with redundant store elimination should fix this. Matz is working on that for 4.6. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42893
