[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization (constant for the rest of the function)

2005-09-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-22 19:33 --- This is a dup of bug 13397. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13397 *** -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization (constant for the rest of the function)

2005-05-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-11 09:35 --- Mainline now has void foo(const Flag&) (f) { const bool D.1718; int D.1717; struct Flag * const this; const bool D.1713; int D.1712; struct Flag * const this; bool D.1707; bool retval.1; b

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization (constant for the rest of the function)

2005-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|missed tree-optimization|missed tree-optimization ||(constant for the rest of

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-01-18 22:29 --- Done. PR19516. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 22:00 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Subject: Re: missed tree-optimization > > this is done at RTL level, but not at tree level. I should file a > separate bug for this one, really. Yes because if we change flag t

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-01-18 20:10 --- Subject: Re: missed tree-optimization pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 > 20:06 --- > (In reply to

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 20:07 --- (In reply to comment #2) > For an example in C++ where we can change it: Obviosly I mean cannot change it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 20:06 --- (In reply to comment #1) > A C testcase with the missing jump threading(?): > > void bar(void); > > void foo(const _Bool *flag) > { > if (*flag) > bar(); > if (*flag) >

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords||alias, missed-optimization http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug tree-optimization/19507] missed tree-optimization

2005-01-18 Thread rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-01-18 16:39 --- A C testcase with the missing jump threading(?): void bar(void); void foo(const _Bool *flag) { if (*flag) bar(); if (*flag) bar(); } a