On 8 September 2016 at 10:31, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > On 07/09/16 20:03, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> >> On September 6, 2016 5:14:47 PM GMT+02:00, Kyrill Tkachov >> <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
> Thanks, fixed all the above in my tree (will be retesting). > >> What about debug statements? ISTM you should skip those. >> (Isn't visited reset before entry of a pass?) > > > Yes, I'll skip debug statements. Comments in gimple.h say that the visited > property is undefined at pass boundaries, so I'd rather initialize it here. Right. > > >> Maybe I missed the bikeshedding about the name but I'd have used >> -fmerge-stores instead. > > > Wouldn't be hard to change. I can change it any point if there's a > consensus. Did you consider any relation to any of https://gcc.gnu.org/PR22141 https://gcc.gnu.org/PR23684 https://gcc.gnu.org/PR47059 https://gcc.gnu.org/PR54422 and their dups or https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg77311.html (the -fmerge-bitfields suggestion from imgtec; maybe the testcases are of interest) thanks,