https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43037&action=edit
proposed UNTESTED patch
Everything is so easy once Jeff does all the analysis :).
As mentioned, there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sun Jan 7 05:31:51 2018
New Revision: 256320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81897
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (compute_control_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It really depends on the growth necessary to expose the thread. I haven't
tried to evaluate that -- clearly if the code growth is unacceptable then
threading is the wrong answer.
In general we should start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just a note. We *could* pick this up without waiting on Aldy's work.
After the second DOM pass we're failing to merge a pair of blocks because there
are still SSA_NAMEs queued for renaming. If we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This really looks like something tree-ssa-uninit.c ought to be handling too.
[ Just to be clear we should fix both tree-ssa-uninit.c the cfgcleanup. ]
We have a PHI with a default definition on the RHS:
