https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 18:39 ---
> So, fixed. Since 4.1 actually.
No, the example in comment #2 is not fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 12:49 ---
Loop header copying allows dom to duplicate the latch and thus we can now
eliminate the NotFound check:
;; Function t (t)
t (l, y)
{
int i;
:
o ();
if (l > 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
i = 0;
Invalid sum of
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-21 15:08 ---
This is a loop optimization issue, not a jump threading bug. To really
optimize this loop well we will likely need the kinds of analysis found
in "Beyond Induction Variables", the classic paper describing loop flip-flops
and
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-27 14:14 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Could it be that this is now fixed?
Nope, the second testcase in comment #2 is still very obvious missing an
optimization with respect with jump threading:
cmpw cr7,r31,r30
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-27 13:48 ---
Could it be that this is now fixed?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-07
18:52 ---
The orginal testcase in comment #0 is fixed now but not the one in comment #2.
--
What|Removed |Added
