[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2014-11-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2011-01-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2011-01-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|46926 | --- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2011-01-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||46926 --- Comment #8 from Richard Guen

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 17:59 --- I get: sincostmp.5 = __builtin_cexpi (phi); REALPART_EXPR <> = REALPART_EXPR ; IMAGPART_EXPR <> = IMAGPART_EXPR ; return ; Which is created after the sincos pass as: sincostmp.5_7 = __builtin_cexpi (phi_1(

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 13:15 --- > you are right, it's not a sibcall, my mistake. typo, I meant "libcall" not "sibcall" -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32684

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 13:12 --- you are right, it's not a sibcall, my mistake. But even at the tree level I still don't see the builtin marked as tailcall. On a reduced case when entering find_tail_calls I have D.1177_2 = __builtin_cos (phi_1(D));

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 10:34 --- Which is unlike the other case where we don't have a call at the tree level that gets marked as tail called. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 10:33 --- It is not since this is not a libcall. At the tree level, we have a __builtin function which has been marked for tailcall. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-10-09 Thread chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 08:36 --- I think this is a duplicate of #15473 (Sibcall optimization for libcalls). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15473 *** -- chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/32684] Missed tail call with sin/cos and sincos pass

2007-07-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-09 09:34 --- Confirmed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|