> I approved the initial sink patch (maybe not clearly enough).
I wasn't entirely happy with that patch. The new version solves this better.
> Can you open
> a bugreport about the missing CFG verification and list the set of FAILs
> (all errors in some passes similar to the one you fixed in
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:35 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > @@ -5674,6 +5675,14 @@ gimple_verify_flow_info (void)
> > >err = 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (prev_stmt && stmt_starts_bb_p (stmt, prev_stmt))
> >
> >
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> > @@ -5674,6 +5675,14 @@ gimple_verify_flow_info (void)
> >err = 1;
> > }
> >
> > + if (prev_stmt && stmt_starts_bb_p (stmt, prev_stmt))
>
> stmt_starts_bb_p is really a helper used during CFG build, I'd rather
>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:10 PM Алексей Нурмухаметов
wrote:
>
> On 13.12.2021 18:20, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On December 13, 2021 3:25:47 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov
> >> wrote:
> >>> Greetings!
> >>>
> >>> While testing our patch
On 13.12.2021 18:20, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
On December 13, 2021 3:25:47 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov
wrote:
Greetings!
While testing our patch that reimplements -Wclobbered on GIMPLE we found
a case where tree-ssa-sink moves a statement to a
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On December 13, 2021 3:25:47 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
> >Greetings!
> >
> >While testing our patch that reimplements -Wclobbered on GIMPLE we found
> >a case where tree-ssa-sink moves a statement to a basic block in front
> >of a
On December 13, 2021 3:25:47 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov
wrote:
>Greetings!
>
>While testing our patch that reimplements -Wclobbered on GIMPLE we found
>a case where tree-ssa-sink moves a statement to a basic block in front
>of a setjmp call.
>
>I am confident that this is unintended and
Greetings!
While testing our patch that reimplements -Wclobbered on GIMPLE we found
a case where tree-ssa-sink moves a statement to a basic block in front
of a setjmp call.
I am confident that this is unintended and should be considered invalid
GIMPLE. One of the edges incoming to a setjmp BB
