------- Comment #14 from razya at il dot ibm dot com 2007-10-30 09:14 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] inlining miscompilation
"rguenther at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/10/2007 15:12:36: > > > ------- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-10-29 13:12 ------- > Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] inlining > miscompilation > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, razya at il dot ibm dot com wrote: > > > > ------- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-10-29 12:14 > > ------- > > > Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] inlining > > > miscompilation > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, razya at il dot ibm dot com wrote: > > > > > > > ------- Comment #10 from razya at il dot ibm dot com 2007-10-29 > > > 12:08 ------- > > > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > > Hmm, I have a question about IPA CP, should it call cfgcleanup > > > also? It does > > > > > not fix the problem here but it seems like a good idea. I can > > > test a patch > > > > > which adds the cfgcleanup if it is a good idea. > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew > > > > IPA CP iterates the whole callgraph, so do you mean cfgcleanup for > > each > > > > function? > > > > > > Only for the clones it propagated constants into. > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > IPA CP basically replaces the uses of the (always consatnt)parameter > > with the constant. > > This can be further folded by the ssa-cp pass on the cloned method. > > So I'm not sure how necessary it is to have a control flow cleanup > > at this stage, but maybe I'm wrong... > > Just because propagating the constants might result in > > if (0) > ... > > which cfg_cleanup is able to remove (or if (1)). > > Richard. > > O.k, sure. Thanks. > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33434 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33434
