https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103227
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to hubicka from comment #5) > > I like the idea of transformation phases better than putting > > everything into tree-inline (and by extension ipa-param-manipulation) > > but perhaps we have to do aggregate constant replacements there too? > > So the situation is that we inline call A->B (where both A and B are > clones of the main function) and while we place uses of the constant > parmater in A we miss replacement in B because transform is not run on > it. No, we miss it everywhere, even in A (see that the code above is from BB 2) or probably also without any cloning whatsoever. This happens when IPA-SRA does its thing on the same parameter on which IPA-CP decided to propagate aggregate constants. In the IPA analysis stage (which creates the virtual clones), IPA-CP runs before IPA-SRA. But in the transformation phase, it is apparently the other way round - well, not exactly, IPA-SRA does not formally have a transformation phase, it happens as part of tree_function_versioning, but the effect is the same. > > I think proper solution here (discussed also few years ago) is to keep > the optimization summaries and teach value numbering to look up the > constant from the summary. > Yes, but this is another (but different) problem that we probably also should try to solve now.
