[LLVMdev] Is this a missed (simple) optimization?
t.p.northover at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 04:07:45 PST 2012
If the function was called Test(&B) then the first store would affect
the second load.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM, AnonW <wayne.phillips at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is a missed optimization, but maybe I'm missing some significant
> piece of knowledge(!) as to why this might not be optimizable :) Test
> int A; // some global
> int B; // some global
> void Test(int *Out)
> *Out = A; // Can't this be optimized away?
> *Out = B;
> The LLVM backend (tested 3.1 and 3.0 online demo) doesn't optimize away the
> first store, even with O3 level compiling in clang. Is there some valid
> reason for this?
> Any insight appreciated. Thanks.
> View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Is-this-a-missed-simple-optimization-tp51361.html
> Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev