https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.suse.com/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> How do you reduce a gcda file together with the original source?
I did it in 2 steps. I first reduced the source file and then I wrote an
experimental binary reducer that removes GCDA function entries.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Created attachment 49785 [details]
> Reduced test-case
>
> I reduced both the source file and the corresponding GCDA file.
How do you reduce a gcda file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Honza, any ideas on this?
> The comment on assert says
> /* In LTO mode we may have speculative edges set. */
> gcc_assert (in_lto_p || size_info->size == size_info->self_size);
>
> Which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Honza, any ideas on this?
The comment on assert says
/* In LTO mode we may have speculative edges set. */
gcc_assert (in_lto_p || size_info->size == size_info->self_size);
Which seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza, any ideas on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Doesn't that just enable the possibility of ICF optimization of those:
> bool
> operator_plus::op1_range (irange , tree type,
> const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
So the following 2 functions are merged:
(gdb) p original->debug()
_ZNK13operator_plus9op1_rangeER6irangeP9tree_nodeRKS0_S5_/1 (bool
operator_plus::op1_range(irange&, tree, const irange&, const irange&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doesn't that just enable the possibility of ICF optimization of those:
bool
operator_plus::op1_range (irange , tree type,
const irange ,
const irange )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 49785
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49785=edit
Reduced test-case
I reduced both the source file and the corresponding GCDA file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49782
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49782=edit
range-op.gcda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98338
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49781=edit
range-op.ii.xz
16 matches
Mail list logo
