[PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-14 Thread tbsaunde+gcc
From: Trevor Saunders gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-09-06 Trevor Saunders * bb-reorder.c (fix_crossing_unconditional_branches): Make type of jump_insn rtx_jump_insn *. * reorg.c (steal_delay_list_from_target): Make type of insn rtx_jump_insn *. (follow_jumps): M

Re: [PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-14 Thread Kaz Kojima
tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: > @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ fix_crossing_unconditional_branches (void) > { > if (!BARRIER_P (cur_insn)) > BLOCK_FOR_INSN (cur_insn) = cur_bb; > - if (JUMP_P (cur_insn)) > - jump_insn = cur_ins

Re: [PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-14 Thread Trevor Saunders
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:04:04PM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: > > @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ fix_crossing_unconditional_branches (void) > > { > > if (!BARRIER_P (cur_insn)) > > BLOCK_FOR_INSN (cur_insn) = cur_bb; > > -

Re: [PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-14 Thread Kaz Kojima
Trevor Saunders wrote: >> This hunk results several new failures for tree-profile tests on SH. >> If the line "if (JUMP_P (cur_insn))" is restored, those failures >> go away. > > That's interesting because dyn_cast should include that check. What is > the error? Here is a typical log: spawn -i

Re: [PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:04:04PM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: >> tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: >> > @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ fix_crossing_unconditional_branches (void) >> > { >> > if (!BARRIER_P (cur_insn)) >> >

Re: [PATCH 1/8] change a few rtx_insn * to rtx_jump_insn *

2016-09-15 Thread Trevor Saunders
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:28:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Trevor Saunders > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:04:04PM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > >> tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote: > >> > @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ fix_crossing_unconditional_branches (void)