[LLVMdev] Missed optimization with indirectbr terminator

[Carlo Alberto Ferraris]

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>