https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109940
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org>
---
Guess that makes it mine. :) It's been a few years since I wrote
this code, but I vaguely remember hitting the problem that the
DF walk orders weren't the “natural” ones, and having to work
around it.
The code iterates backwards over what was the DF_BACKWARD postorder,
which I think was the workaround. Now that DF_BACKWARD (correctly)
gives an RPO over a backward traversal, and DF_FORWARD is a true
forward RPO, the fix will probably be to switch from using DF_BACKWARD
to DF_FORWARD.
