Hi,

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:08:27PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > recently I've been looking into a number of bugs involving
> > > symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes in one way or another and I have
> > > always started by applying the hunk below.  I did this because
> > > distinguishing different symbol nodes only according to their names is
> > > just so inconvenient, especially when compiling C++.  The risk is
> > > minimal and therefore I'd like to propose it to trunk even at this
> > > late stage, although I can of course wait until the next stage1.
> > > 
> > > The other hunk is something that I think is also useful when looking
> > > into all failures of ipcp_verify_propagated_values like e.g. PR 60727.
> > > 
> > > I included the patch in a recent bootstrap and testing and it of
> > > course passes.  OK for trunk now?  Or later?
> > 
> > I'll leave the actual changes for review by Honza, it's fine at this
> > stage if he things the changes make sense and are consistent.
> 
> It seems fine to me...

Thanks, I will commit it shortly then.

> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2014-04-01  Martin Jambor  <mjam...@suse.cz>
> > > 
> > >   * ipa-cp.c (ipcp_verify_propagated_values): Also dump symtab and
> > >   mention gcc_unreachable before failing.
> > >   * ipa.c (symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes): Also print order of
> > >   removed symbols.
> > > 
> > > Index: src/gcc/ipa-cp.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- src.orig/gcc/ipa-cp.c
> > > +++ src/gcc/ipa-cp.c
> > > @@ -884,8 +884,9 @@ ipcp_verify_propagated_values (void)
> > >       {
> > >         if (dump_file)
> > >           {
> > > +           dump_symtab (dump_file);
> > >             fprintf (dump_file, "\nIPA lattices after constant "
> > > -                    "propagation:\n");
> > > +                    "propagation, before gcc_unreachable:\n");
> 
> This means before symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes?

No, there is litrally a call to gcc_unreachable just below this
dumping.  I added this to grep for it easily when I have a number of
dumps lying around because there is the same string in normal dumps
too.

Thanks,

Martin

Reply via email to