On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, bin.cheng wrote: > Hi, > This patch is to fix regression reported in PR60280 by removing forward loop > headers/latches in cfg cleanup if possible. Several tests are broken by > this change since cfg cleanup is shared by all optimizers. Some tests has > already been fixed by recent patches, I went through and fixed the others. > One case needs to be clarified is "gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c". When > GCC removing a basic block, it checks profile information by calling > check_bb_profile after redirecting incoming edges of the bb. This certainly > results in warnings about invalid profile information and causes the case to > fail. I will send a patch to skip checking profile information for a > removing basic block in stage 1 if it sounds reasonable. For now I just > twisted the case itself. > > Bootstrap and tested on x86_64 and arm_a15. > > Is it OK? > > > 2014-02-25 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > PR target/60280 > * tree-cfgcleanup.c (tree_forwarder_block_p): Protect loop > preheaders and latches only if requested. Fix latch if it > is removed. > * tree-ssa-dom.c (tree_ssa_dominator_optimize): Set > LOOPS_HAVE_PREHEADERS. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > 2014-02-25 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > PR target/60280 > * gnat.dg/renaming5.adb: Change to two expected gotos. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21559.c: Change back to three expected > jump threads. > * gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c: Check two "Invalid sum" > messages for removed basic block. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_1.c: Fix unreliable scanning string. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_4.c: Ditto.
Do you need to also update gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-4.c, at least for logical_op_short_circuit targets? (There's a nice analysis comment there by Richard S which may also have to be updated.) This caused a regression for logical_op_short_circuit targets, I entered PR60363 for convenience. brgds, H-P
