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,

Reply via email to