On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I didn't want to rebase my patchset yet again to fix this minor goof. I > moved initialization of BB_VISITED into the range analyzer, but forgot > to move setting it as we visit each block into the analyzer. > > This fixes that oversight. > > Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86. > > OK for the trunk?
Ok. Richard. > Jeff > > * gimple-ssa-evrp.c (evrp_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Do not > set BB_VISITED here. > * gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c (evrp_range_analyzer::enter): Set > BB_VISITED here instead. > > commit 0455c00f320dc1136ca742e46ca5a184e144b0e6 > Author: Jeff Law <l...@torsion.usersys.redhat.com> > Date: Fri Nov 17 15:15:36 2017 -0500 > > FIx bb_visited handling > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c > index 4f33c644a74..9e581834d08 100644 > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ evrp_range_analyzer::enter (basic_block bb) > stack.safe_push (std::make_pair (NULL_TREE, (value_range *)NULL)); > record_ranges_from_incoming_edge (bb); > record_ranges_from_phis (bb); > + bb->flags |= BB_VISITED; > } > > /* Find new range for NAME such that (OP CODE LIMIT) is true. */ > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp.c > index 5fa9cfb3538..27a983dd9ae 100644 > --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp.c > +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp.c > @@ -228,8 +228,6 @@ evrp_dom_walker::before_dom_children (basic_block bb) > } > } > > - bb->flags |= BB_VISITED; > - > return taken_edge; > } > >
