On 2/10/23 03:12, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
The following fixes a latent issue when we mark control edges but
end up with marking a block with no stmts necessary. In this case
we fail to mark dependent control edges of that block.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Does this look OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
PR tree-optimization/106722
* tree-ssa-dce.cc (mark_last_stmt_necessary): Return
whether we marked a stmt.
(mark_control_dependent_edges_necessary): When
mark_last_stmt_necessary didn't mark any stmt make sure
to mark its control dependent edges.
(propagate_necessity): Likewise.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr108737.c: New testcase.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.cc
index b2fe9f4f55e..21b3294fc86 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dce.cc
@@ -327,17 +327,23 @@ mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary (gimple *stmt, bool
aggressive)
/* Mark the last statement of BB as necessary. */
-static void
+static bool
Function comment probably needs an update for the new return value.
OK with that fix.
jeff
