On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 10:30, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > Hi, > > For PR91532, the dead store is trivially deleted if we place dse pass > > between ifcvt and vect. Would it be OK to add another instance of dse there > > ? > > Or should we add an ad-hoc "basic-block dse" sub-pass to ifcvt that > > will clean up the dead store ? > > No, the issue is the same as PR33315 and exists on the non-vectorized > code as well. Oh OK, thanks for pointing out.
Thanks, Prathamesh > > Richard.
