On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:57:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-1.c execution test
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-5.c scan-assembler-not abort
>
> I admit I haven't looked at the details here, but wonder if the o
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:57:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-1.c execution test
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-5.c scan-assembler-not abort
I admit I haven't looked at the details here, but wonder if the optimization
couldn't be done only in the DCE passes p
On 5/29/19 7:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following tries to address PR90648 by performing final
> value replacement from DCE when DCE knows the final value
> computation is not used during loop iteration. This fits
> neatly enough into existing tricks performed by DCE like
> removing unu
