[LLVMdev] Missed optimization with indirectbr terminator

Carlo Alberto Ferraris cafxx at strayorange.com
Fri Jul 8 07:38:35 PDT 2011

Il 08/07/2011 09:21, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto:
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote:
>> I'll try to inspect the assembler. Just a quick thought in the mean time, in the snippet I posted, if the backedge pointed directly to %19, other optimizations would likely notice that the loop could be removed entirely and replaced with a single addition. Do you think the code generator is able t
>> o do this?
> Why would you write a loop with an indirect branch where the loop can be deleted?
I'm working on an IPO that uses indirectbrs. The loop was part of the 
code being compiled.

Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com 
<mailto:cafxx at strayorange.com>>
website/blog <http://cafxx.strayorange.com> - +39 333 7643 235
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110708/74b37c7c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cafxx.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110708/74b37c7c/attachment.vcf>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list