2016-05-11 15:45 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-05-10 21:13 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Curretly CSE may modify CFG and leave invalid dominance info. This patch
>>>> improves track of CFG changes by CSE passes and frees dominance info if
>>>> required. This allows to remove corresponding workaround from STV pass.
>>>>
>>>> Does it look OK?
>>>>
>>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c
>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..9ef2a4d
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>> +/* PR middle-end/70807 */
>>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>>> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
>>>> +
>>>> +typedef int INT;
>>>> +int a, b, c, d, e, f;
>>>> +void fn1() {
>>>> + INT g;
>>>> + if (d && a)
>>>> + ;
>>>> + else if (e && b)
>>>> + ;
>>>> + else if (!a && !b && c)
>>>> + ;
>>>> + else if (b && d || a && e)
>>>> + a = 0;
>>>> + f = g || d;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Does this test fail without the fix?
>>
>> Yes, I creduced it from a libgcc build fail caused by the trigger
>> patch from the tracker.
>>
>
> This test only uses int, which is 32-bit. How does it trigger
> STV?
I don't fix any bug in STV. This test should trigger CSE.
Thanks,
Ilya
>
> --
> H.J.
