------- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-01-29 17:17 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Random debug generation differences, bootstrap fails
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 16:43 ------- > In theory we could reuse the next_containing_mem field for a counter, as it > isn't used for anything once cselib_preserve_only_values is called (and I > believe canon_value_cmp is only ever used after vt_initialize phase finishes, > i.e. all VALUEs have gone through cselib_preserve_only_values. > remove_useless_values could have a bool argument which > cselib_preserve_only_values would set, then it would just set an int in union > with next_containing_mem to a counter (incremented after each > cselib_preserve_only_values call starting at cselib_init). > The trouble is how to teach GC not to walk next_containing_mem / this int (it > isn't needed to walk next_containing_mem anyway, as all the VALUEs must be in > the hash table anyway). Or we could simply record the basic-block and use its index for tie-breaking? Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42896
