> This patch rebuilds frequency after vrp.
Why do you need to rebuild frequency after VRP? I always tought it may be
useful to do VRP as early optimization (modulo to compile time costs),
but I do not think we should unconditionally rebuild frequencies like this...
Honza
>
> Bootstrapped and testing on-going. OK for trunk if test pass?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 2014-06-02 Dehao Chen <de...@google.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/61384
> * tree-vrp.c (execute_vrp): rebuild frequency after vrp.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 2014-06-02 Dehao Chen <de...@google.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/61384
> * gcc.dg/pr61384.c: New testcase.
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61384.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61384.c (revision 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61384.c (revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/61384 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> +
> +int a, b, d, e, g, h;
> +static int c = 1, f[5];
> +
> +int
> +fn1 (int p1, int p2)
> +{
> + return p1 && p2 && p2;
> +}
> +
> +void
> +fn2 ()
> +{
> + for (d = 0; d < 1; d++)
> + {
> + g = f[0];
> + e = 0;
> + h = fn1 (1, (a && c) ^ b);
> + }
> + for (; e < 5; e++)
> + f[e] = 1;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +main ()
> +{
> + fn2 ();
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree-vrp.c (revision 211137)
> +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c (working copy)
> @@ -9794,7 +9794,7 @@ execute_vrp (void)
>
> scev_finalize ();
> loop_optimizer_finalize ();
> - return 0;
> + return TODO_rebuild_frequencies;
> }
>
> namespace {
