On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 03:31:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > > It looks like LOOP_VINFO_EARLY_BRK_STORES is "reverse"? Is that
> > > > why you are doing gsi_move_before + gsi_prev? Why do gsi_prev
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 03:31:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > It looks like LOOP_VINFO_EARLY_BRK_STORES is "reverse"? Is that
> > > why you are doing gsi_move_before + gsi_prev? Why do gsi_prev
> > > at all?
> > >
> >
> > As discussed on IRC,
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > It looks like LOOP_VINFO_EARLY_BRK_STORES is "reverse"? Is that
> > why you are doing gsi_move_before + gsi_prev? Why do gsi_prev
> > at all?
> >
>
> As discussed on IRC, then how about this one.
> Incremental building passed all tests and bootstr
> It looks like LOOP_VINFO_EARLY_BRK_STORES is "reverse"? Is that
> why you are doing gsi_move_before + gsi_prev? Why do gsi_prev
> at all?
>
As discussed on IRC, then how about this one.
Incremental building passed all tests and bootstrap is running.
Ok for master if bootstrap and regtesting
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:22 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: fix ICE when moving statements to empty BB
> [PR113731]
>
>
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We use gsi_move_before (&stmt_gsi, &dest_gsi); to request that the new
> statement
> be placed before any other statement. Typically this then moves the current
> pointer to be after the statement we just inserted.
>
> However it looks l
