http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
09:28:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
The fix causes a build regression for mn10300:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
13:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
The fix causes a build regression for mn10300:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #18 from Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de 2013-02-13 20:23:17
UTC ---
Confirmed to build again, thanks. (Though I didn't test the resulting
compiler.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbg...@lug-owl.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08
11:00:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 8 11:00:26 2013
New Revision: 195879
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195879
Log:
2013-02-08
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06
10:45:35 UTC ---
I think the issue is that we are duplicating a loop header. Yes, we somehow
lost (or did not detect) this loop - we don't discover new loops after we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06
14:20:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29368
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29368
patch to make flow_loops_find work in-place
One idea is, as in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29368|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06
14:55:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Created attachment 29369 [details]
updated patch
This works better. Probably flow_loops_find should not handle loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29369|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06
16:00:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Created attachment 29371 [details]
final patch
This is what I am considering seriously. It adds the dumping (but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
12:16:08 UTC ---
So, what happens here is that tracer performs tail-duplication. That is per se
of course fine, but when we're re-scanning bodies in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
12:22:28 UTC ---
Hopefully it'll be somewhat clearer with a picture:
http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/src/pr56181.png
the BB 4 is the one that is first marked as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
15:53:44 UTC ---
Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose successor
and predecessor is a header. Testing a patch for that...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
15:58:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose
successor
and predecessor is a header. Testing a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
16:33:45 UTC ---
Hmm, maybe I should have put it this way: we don't want to duplicate a BB,
which may be a preheader. Does it sound sane? Thus, something like
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
18 matches
Mail list logo
