https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #13 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxue
Date: Wed Jan 8 02:55:00 2020
New Revision: 279987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279987=gcc=rev
Log:
Find matched aggregate lattice for self-recursive CP (PR ipa/93084)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #12 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Identified the cause, it's my bug, will give a fix soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of
> xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
> target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
that ought to return xxx unless the target of localalias is thunk that
is not recursive.
> thing we can do is to write a simple case to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to fxue from comment #8)
> [...]
> Then is there a case that a ipcp_lattice be shared by different cgraph nodes?
No, there isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #9 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
xxx.localalias is gcc-generated as a noninterposable alias to xxx. But I guess
target node returned by xxx.localalias->function_symbol() is not xxx. A simple
thing we can do is to write a simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #8 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I checked llvm source code, the recursive call lies in Constant
*llvm::ConstantFoldInsertValueInstruction(), but in dump, I noticed that call
edge is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
>
> --- Comment #6 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Could you share how you build clang with PGO, and train workload?
It needs a lot of patience. If
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
>
> --- Comment #6 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Could you share how you build clang with PGO, and train workload?
It needs a lot of patience. If you have patch I can try it since I
still have the train data and corresponding gcc tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
--- Comment #6 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could you share how you build clang with PGO, and train workload?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
fxue at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
13 matches
Mail list logo
