> Hi Honza,
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:39:18 +0100
> Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
> > index 422b52fba4b..550bdeded16 100644
> > --- a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
> > +++ b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
> > @@ -1513,6 +1611,9 @@ propagate_pure_const (void)
> > enum pure_const_state_e edge_state = IPA_CONST;
> > bool edge_looping = false;
> >
> > + if (e->recursive_p ())
> > + looping = true;
> > +
> > if (e->recursive_p ())
> > looping = true;
> >
>
> This seems redundant, no?
Yes, artifact of breaking up the patch :(
I also noticed that I mixed up looping flag (there are two variables one
called looping and other this_looping while the second is one I should
use and first is one I used)
Fixed as follows.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* ipa-pure-const.c (propagate_pure_const): Remove redundant check;
fix call of ipa_make_function_const and ipa_make_function_pure.
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
index b831844afa6..5056850c0a8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
@@ -1611,9 +1611,6 @@ propagate_pure_const (void)
enum pure_const_state_e edge_state = IPA_CONST;
bool edge_looping = false;
- if (e->recursive_p ())
- looping = true;
-
if (e->recursive_p ())
looping = true;
@@ -1800,11 +1797,11 @@ propagate_pure_const (void)
switch (this_state)
{
case IPA_CONST:
- remove_p |= ipa_make_function_const (node, looping, false);
+ remove_p |= ipa_make_function_const (node, this_looping, false);
break;
case IPA_PURE:
- remove_p |= ipa_make_function_pure (node, looping, false);
+ remove_p |= ipa_make_function_pure (node, this_looping, false);
break;
default:
