Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2019-02-13 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
> 2019-02-13 Ian Lance Taylor > > * optc-save-gen.awk: Set var_opt_hash for initial optimizations > and set current index for other optimizations. > > 2019-02-13 Ian Lance Taylor > > * gcc.dg/func-attr-1.c: New test. I went ahead and committed this patch. Ian

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2019-02-13 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:08 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > So I guess we need some alternate PerFunction option flag that makes > > it per-function, but not part of the ICF hash? > > Like this... > > If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-06 Thread Martin Liška
On 01/06/2017 11:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On January 6, 2017 3:49:54 AM GMT+01:00, Alexandre Oliva > wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >>> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact >> that >>> it is not

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-06 Thread Martin Liška
On 01/06/2017 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 12:49:54AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >>> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that >>> it is not enough. >> >> Sorry, it wasn't

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-06 Thread Richard Biener
On January 6, 2017 3:49:54 AM GMT+01:00, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact >that >> it is not enough. > >Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 12:49:54AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that > > it is not enough. > > Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's enough to fix the

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-05 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > You've just changed the hash function and my mail was about the fact that > it is not enough. Sorry, it wasn't clear 'enough for what'. It's enough to fix the bug/symptom I had observed and intended to fix, but yes, there is another

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 07:13:50PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > OPTIMIZATION_NODE is created by saving options, computing hash > > (cl_option_hasher::hash apparently for OPTIMIZATION_NODE does not > > use cl_optimization_hash, why?), comparing (no cl_optimization_eq, > > just memcmp for

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-05 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 5, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > OPTIMIZATION_NODE is created by saving options, computing hash > (cl_option_hasher::hash apparently for OPTIMIZATION_NODE does not > use cl_optimization_hash, why?), comparing (no cl_optimization_eq, > just memcmp for equality) and if

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:06:09AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to > be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn > causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these > numbers

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-04 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 4, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > So I guess we need some alternate PerFunction option flag that makes > it per-function, but not part of the ICF hash? Like this... If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to be processed in a different

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-04 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 4, 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-04 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 4, 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to >> be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn

Re: [-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-04 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to > be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn > causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these >

[-fcompare-debug] var tracking options are not optimization options

2017-01-02 Thread Alexandre Oliva
If we include them in the ICF hash, they may cause congruence_groups to be processed in a different order due to different hashes, which in turn causes different funcdef_nos to be assigned to functions. Since these numbers are included in -fcompare-debug dumps, they cause failures. Since these