https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
--- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Run if_to_switch and convert_switch again after copyprop2 could remove the redundant statement and expose opportunity for if-to-switch again, is this reasonable or just move if-to-switch/switch-conversion later run only once? diff --git a/gcc/gimple-if-to-switch.cc b/gcc/gimple-if-to-switch.cc index f7b0b02628b..8f55d0e2f75 100644 --- a/gcc/gimple-if-to-switch.cc +++ b/gcc/gimple-if-to-switch.cc @@ -484,6 +484,8 @@ public: || bit_test_cluster::is_enabled ()); } + opt_pass *clone () { return new pass_if_to_switch (m_ctxt); } + virtual unsigned int execute (function *); }; // class pass_if_to_switch diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def index 375d3d62d51..b257307e085 100644 --- a/gcc/passes.def +++ b/gcc/passes.def @@ -243,6 +243,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see Clean them up. Failure to do so well can lead to false positives from warnings for erroneous code. */ NEXT_PASS (pass_copy_prop); + NEXT_PASS (pass_if_to_switch); + NEXT_PASS (pass_convert_switch); /* Identify paths that should never be executed in a conforming program and isolate those paths. */ NEXT_PASS (pass_isolate_erroneous_paths); diff --git a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.cc b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.cc index 50a17927f39..d5c8262785e 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.cc @@ -2429,6 +2429,9 @@ public: /* opt_pass methods: */ virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_tree_switch_conversion != 0; } + + opt_pass *clone () { return new pass_convert_switch (m_ctxt); } + virtual unsigned int execute (function *);