On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:49 PM Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> This last test now fails on aarch64:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c scan-tree-dump thread3 "Jumps
> threaded: 8"
>
> Can you check?
These rather large tests checking for some random number of jump
threads are very annoying.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 6:32 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/10/2021 7:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/10/21 3:16 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>
> >>>
On 9/10/2021 7:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/10/21 3:16 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
}
+
+ /* Threading through a non-empty latch would cause code to be added
"through an *empty* latch". The test in c
Hello,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Like this?
Yep, but I can't approve.
Ciao,
Michael.
On 9/10/21 3:16 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
}
+
+ /* Threading through a non-empty latch would cause code to be added
"through an *empty* latch". The test in code is correct, though.
Whoops.
And for the before/after lo
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> }
> +
> + /* Threading through a non-empty latch would cause code to be added
"through an *empty* latch". The test in code is correct, though.
And for the before/after loops flag you added: we have a
cfun->curr_properties
I think things are clear enough to propose a patch. Thanks for
everyone's input.
I have added some comments and tweaked Michael's patch to include the
final BB where we're threading to, in the check. Without this last
check, we fail in tree-ssa/cunroll-15.c because the latch becomes
pollute
