> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> > > >> > Yeah, this may also work. The reason it is not done is that > >> > 1) it seemed expensive to force CFG changes just to compute profile > >> > decade ago > >> > 2) cfgcleanup afterwards will anyway remove the headers again. > >> > So I originally hoped to do the right thing without normalization. > >> > >> Ok ... then you should pass AVOID_CFG_MODIFICATIONS instead. And be > >> prepared for odd situations like this ;) > > > > Well, I guess we could do the extra work to avoid strange side cases like > > this. > > Does normalization fix the testcase, too? > > Normalization indeed fixed this issue too. So what shall we do about > this patch? Shall we simply change to use normalization instead?
Yes, I think it is not _that_ expensive and we do some relatively tricky CFG analysis there these days that should also get bit better. (the code was written at a time CFG was new citizen to GCC and changes in CFG was hard and considered harmful :) Honza > > Thanks, > Dehao > > > > > Honza > >> > >> > Honza
