https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #9)
> > Any progress on fixing the test case, so that this can be finally fixed?
>
> I have no idea how to do that withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
No. The fallout was never resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #15 from Cristian RodrÃguez ---
Was this issue ever fixed/addressed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, I think so. = {} has the advantage that the destination isn't
address-taken compared to memset which has alias analysis benefits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Created attachment 44963 [details]
> updated patch
>
> Updated patch. There are the expected missing warnings plus the two missed
> optimizations noted by t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27563|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Bug 36602 depends on bug 16427, which changed state.
Bug 16427 Summary: dead memset not optimized away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16427
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #9)
> Any progress on fixing the test case, so that this can be finally fixed?
I have no idea how to do that without making the testcase test sth different.
We could of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-11
10:58:41 UTC ---
Ok. I suppose I need to "fix" gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_struct_returning.c
somehow then ... :/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-06
16:36:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Joseph, Jason - any opinion on the question of equivalence between
> memcpy/memset and an aggregate assignment/init (also consider anonymous
> memory)?
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-06
14:11:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 27563
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27563
proposed patch
Not as easy when the initialized struct contains padding ...
The following testca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org,
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 18:52 ---
We do look through the memset at the tree level now but we don't remove it
still.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-22 21:26 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
18 matches
Mail list logo
