On 04/27/2015 12:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On April 27, 2015 6:24:47 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law
n & -n will (of course) get computed into an SSA_NAME. We then
propagate that name for the use of "n" in the return statement
rather than using the effectively zero cost "n".
If we put some smarts i
On April 27, 2015 6:24:47 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 04/27/2015 06:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
On 02/17/2015 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
[ Restarting a old thread... ]
> On
On 04/27/2015 06:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/17/2015 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
[ Restarting a old thread... ]
On a closer look the record_const_or_copy_1 hunk is redundant
(record_equality is really
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > On 02/17/2015 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > [ Restarting a old thread... ]
> >
> > > On a closer look the record_const_or_copy_1 hunk is redundant
> > > (record_equality is really a bit obfuscated...).
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/17/2015 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> [ Restarting a old thread... ]
>
> > On a closer look the record_const_or_copy_1 hunk is redundant
> > (record_equality is really a bit obfuscated...).
> Agreed. I'm not entirely sure how it got to this point.
On 02/17/2015 07:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
[ Restarting a old thread... ]
On a closer look the record_const_or_copy_1 hunk is redundant
(record_equality is really a bit obfuscated...).
Agreed. I'm not entirely sure how it got to this point.
And record_equality is where the SSA_NAME_VALUEs
On 02/17/15 07:03, Richard Biener wrote:
This is something I noticed some time ago and that I remembered when
you added that looping SSA_NAME_VALUE to simplify_control_stmt_condition.
Currently DOM doesn't make sure that when setting
SSA_NAME_VALUE (x) = y that SSA_NAME_VALUE (y) == y, thus you
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is something I noticed some time ago and that I remembered when
> you added that looping SSA_NAME_VALUE to simplify_control_stmt_condition.
> Currently DOM doesn't make sure that when setting
> SSA_NAME_VALUE (x) = y that SSA_NAME_VALUE (y) == y
This is something I noticed some time ago and that I remembered when
you added that looping SSA_NAME_VALUE to simplify_control_stmt_condition.
Currently DOM doesn't make sure that when setting
SSA_NAME_VALUE (x) = y that SSA_NAME_VALUE (y) == y, thus you could
get SSA_NAME_VALUE forming a chain un
