>
> > OK,
> > is bb1 going to die? If not, probably bb1->count = 0 should be there, if
> > so,
> > then the bb1->frequency = 0 is redundant.
>
> Agree, we do 'delete_basic_block (bb1)' and the frequency is not used in
> between, so the setting to 0 seems unnecessary.
>
> testing it:
>
> Index
> OK,
> is bb1 going to die? If not, probably bb1->count = 0 should be there, if so,
> then the bb1->frequency = 0 is redundant.
Agree, we do 'delete_basic_block (bb1)' and the frequency is not used in
between, so the setting to 0 seems unnecessary.
testing it:
Index: tree-ssa-tail-merge.c
===
> Hello,
>
> This tiny patch fixes the issue previously discussed in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00794.html
>
> Not maintaining bb->count while merging basic blocs results in wrong
> partitioning (and surely other) decisions. This is visible on the SH4
> with shrink-wrapping. I
Hello,
This tiny patch fixes the issue previously discussed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00794.html
Not maintaining bb->count while merging basic blocs results in wrong
partitioning (and surely other) decisions. This is visible on the SH4
with shrink-wrapping. I haven't noticed
