Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-15 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 11:45 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this is patch fixing the underlying issue of function missing > lto_prepare_function_for_streaming because gimple_has_body_p is not > the > same thing as node.has_gimple_body (which needs to be clarified next > stage1 by finding better

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-15 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hi, this is patch fixing the underlying issue of function missing lto_prepare_function_for_streaming because gimple_has_body_p is not the same thing as node.has_gimple_body (which needs to be clarified next stage1 by finding better names for this I suppose). I commited it to gcc 11 even though we

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-13 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 14:21 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 08:08 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Hi, > > stepping through the streaming process it turns out to be funny > > difference between gimple_has_body and node->has_gimple_body_p. > > While the first tests

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-13 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 08:08 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > stepping through the streaming process it turns out to be funny > difference between gimple_has_body and node->has_gimple_body_p. > While the first tests whether gimple body really exists in memory (by > looking for

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-13 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hi, stepping through the streaming process it turns out to be funny difference between gimple_has_body and node->has_gimple_body_p. While the first tests whether gimple body really exists in memory (by looking for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION) the second tests if gimple body can be made available via

Re: [committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-12 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hello > > Thanks. > > > > I think my earlier analysis was wrong. Sorry for late reply. I was looking into it again yesterday but was bit confused about what is goin gon here. > > > > With the caveat that I'm not as familiar with the IPA code as other > > parts of the compiler, what I think is

[committed] gimple UIDs, LTO and -fanalyzer [PR98599]

2021-04-12 Thread David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 22:07 -0500, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 20:09 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 15:00 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:04 PM David Malcolm via > > > > > Gcc-patches > > > > > wrote: > > > > >