Hi Martin,
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 13:30, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 5/27/19 2:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> +/* Compare loop information for basic blocks BB1 and BB2. */
> >> +
> >> +bool
> >> +func_checker::compare_loops (basic_block bb1, basic_block bb2)
> >> +{
> >> + if ((bb1->loop_father == NULL) != (bb2->loop_father == NULL))
> >> + return return_false ();
> >> +
> >> + struct loop *l1 = bb1->loop_father;
> >> + struct loop *l2 = bb2->loop_father;
> >
> > Perhaps also
> > if ((bb1 == l1->header) != (bb2 == l2->header))
> > return return_false_with_msg ("header");
> > if ((bb1 == l1->latch) != (bb2 == l2->latch))
> > return return_false_with_msg ("latch");
> > too?
>
> Yes, makes sense.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
The new testcase contains:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-fopenmp-simd -O2 -mavx512f -fdump-ipa-icf" } */
/* { dg-do compile { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
I suspect line 3 should actually be line 1, because the test fails to
compile on non-x86 targets:
xgcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mavx512f'
Was it your intention?
Thanks,
Christophe
> >
> > BTW, unrelated to this patch, what does ICF do if e.g. SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
> > or SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO is different between otherwise identical functions?
> > Say one having early
> > if (arg > 10)
> > __builtin_unreachable ();
> > and another one
> > if (arg > - 10)
> > __builtin_unreachable ();
> > both optimized away into SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO of the argument before IPA (or
> > do we optimize that away only after IPA?).
> >
> > Jakub
> >
>
> Can you please provide a self-contained test-case?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
