yes
On 03/20/2011 08:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:42:26AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
i think that this is the right way to go.my view is not just
what the code currently does, but also from the perspective of the
way i want this to work as the back ends evolve.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:42:26AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> i think that this is the right way to go.my view is not just
> what the code currently does, but also from the perspective of the
> way i want this to work as the back ends evolve.
Here is the updated patch, bootstrapped/regtest
On 03/19/2011 09:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:48:55AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
i think that there are two separate questions here:
1) should your original patch go in as you did it, or should it go
in with the last "return false" be an abort?
bool
df_get_bb_dirt
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:48:55AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> i think that there are two separate questions here:
>
> 1) should your original patch go in as you did it, or should it go
> in with the last "return false" be an abort?
bool
df_get_bb_dirty (basic_block bb)
{
return bitmap_bit_p
On 03/19/2011 08:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:08:48AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
On 03/19/2011 05:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
for cor
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:08:48AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
> On 03/19/2011 05:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck
> >wrote:
> >>yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
> >>for correctness.
> >Note that df_get_bb_
On 03/19/2011 05:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
for correctness.
Note that df_get_bb_dirty is defaulting to "return false", not
"abort". This is what tricked crossjum
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> yes, but i think that the reason this is a pr is that it seems to be needed
> for correctness.
Note that df_get_bb_dirty is defaulting to "return false", not
"abort". This is what tricked crossjumping and caused the bug.
If I can get hold o
i see your point.I had forgotten that crossjumping is not really a
pass, it is more of an infectious agent.
On 03/18/2011 01:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I believe that this
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:45:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Is the live problem so much more useful for crossjumping than lr problem?
> > All it wants to prove is if it can safely move a couple of instructions
> > across some other instructions, and the live_union bitmap that is computed
> >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> I believe that this is not the right way to go.
>>
>> if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on
>> live for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.
I could be happy with both patches.
On 03/18/2011 12:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I believe that this is not the right way to go.
if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for
the duration of the pass just as ifc
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> I believe that this is not the right way to go.
>
> if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for the
> duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask for crossjumping you
> should give them crossjumping and n
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 17:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> I believe that this is not the right way to go.
>
> if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live for
> the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does. If they ask for crossjumping
> you should give them crossjumping a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:23:11PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> I believe that this is not the right way to go.
>
> if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on
> live for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask
> for crossjumping you should give them cro
I believe that this is not the right way to go.
if someone specifies -fcrossjumping, then the pass should turn on live
for the duration of the pass just as ifcvt does.If they ask for
crossjumping you should give them crossjumping and not some crippled
version of it.
kenny
On 03/18/201
Hi!
The testcase below is miscompiled on x86_64-linux.
The problem is that try_head_merge_bb uses df_get_bb_dirty
to see if it can use df_get_live_out () info
(through simulate_backwards_to_point) reliably, but as at
-O1 the live problem isn't computed, only lr problem,
df_get_live_out () returns
17 matches
Mail list logo
