On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:32:18AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think I simply didn't want to change more testcases at that point,
> > but I can't see how followup passes at the very point wouldn't
> > clean things up very quickly (via fre or copyp
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:32:18AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think I simply didn't want to change more testcases at that point,
> but I can't see how followup passes at the very point wouldn't
> clean things up very quickly (via fre or copyprop). Eventually
> it was -Og and pass_fold_builti
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > this hunk which I think is not really necessary given that
> > the late object-size pass now runs right before FRE which
>
> Not really immediately before that, but a few passes appart.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> this hunk which I think is not really necessary given that
> the late object-size pass now runs right before FRE which
Not really immediately before that, but a few passes appart.
And in the -Og case, while the immediately next pass
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed in the PR, fixing this issue for real (make sure we at least
> until the objsz pass don't lose information on which field's address if any
> has been taken) is probably too dangerous at this point, so this patch
> just adds a simple
