https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Jan 26 22:19:17 2019
New Revision: 268305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268305=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR ipa/88933] Careful CFG cleanup in IPA-CP function transformation
2019-01-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I did that too and proposed a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01525.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Looks OK. I would move delete_unreachable_blocks_update_callgraph
to tree-cfgcleanup since it is no longer inliner specific. We probably
also can sanity check that TODO_cfgcleanup is not done by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45504|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I'm currently testing this fix.
Cleanup_cfg does other transformations that makes profile to change and
statements move within bbs. Just use the unreachable block removal
infrastructure we already have and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> Actually, looking at Martin's patch, I guess ipcp transfrom should do
> the same as inliner - do not cleanup cfg but call
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45511=edit
Untested fix
I'm currently testing this fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually, looking at Martin's patch, I guess ipcp transfrom should do
the same as inliner - do not cleanup cfg but call
delete_unreachable_blocks_update_callgraph
and then go with SSA update via TODO.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
>
> Martin Jambor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Created attachment 45504 [details]
> Untested patch candidate
>
> @Martin: Can you please take a look at the patch?
The patch survives regression tests and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45504=edit
Untested patch candidate
@Martin: Can you please take a look at the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
It does w/ -fchecking, but in a different way, so maybe these are really
unrelated issues: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/BbN9DX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r257233, where a new memcpy call builtin is introduced.
Arseny, are you sure it fails also for GCC 6.* and GCC 7.* branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
19 matches
Mail list logo
