On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:41:14PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I think NULL new_stmt would have the advantage that we wouldn't duplicate
> > the complex code looping through all kinds of clones.
>
> Yeah, I'd prefer that variant. Honza?
Ok, after further discussions with Honza on IRC here
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj 2011-06-02 10:15:20.0 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2011-06-03 09:29:1
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj 2011-06-02 10:15:20.0 +0200
> > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2011-06-03 09:29:15.0 +0200
> > @@ -4108,6 +4108,14 @@ fold_marked_st
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If memcpy is folded into an assignment, that assignment can be for C++
> folded into nothing (if it is copying of 1 byte from or to empty C++ class).
> gimple-fold.c was changed to handle that case in some spots, but not all,
> particu
Hi!
If memcpy is folded into an assignment, that assignment can be for C++
folded into nothing (if it is copying of 1 byte from or to empty C++ class).
gimple-fold.c was changed to handle that case in some spots, but not all,
particularly if that memcpy is the last stmt in a basic block (which can
