Hi!
I'd like to create 4.9.2-rc1 soon (anyone has any pending patches
for 4.9 branch?), so I've bootstrapped/regtested following 3
backports on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
Ok for 4.9?
Is the new PR63306 testcase ok for trunk too?
Jakub
2014-10-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Backported from mainline
2014-09-10 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz>
PR tree-optimization/63186
* ipa-split.c (test_nonssa_use): Skip nonforced labels.
(mark_nonssa_use): Likewise.
(verify_non_ssa_vars): Verify all header blocks for label
definitions.
* gcc.dg/pr63186.c: New testcase.
--- gcc/ipa-split.c (revision 215148)
+++ gcc/ipa-split.c (revision 215149)
@@ -167,7 +167,11 @@ test_nonssa_use (gimple, tree t, tree, v
|| (TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
&& auto_var_in_fn_p (t, current_function_decl))
|| TREE_CODE (t) == RESULT_DECL
- || TREE_CODE (t) == LABEL_DECL)
+ /* Normal labels are part of CFG and will be handled gratefuly.
+ Forced labels however can be used directly by statements and
+ need to stay in one partition along with their uses. */
+ || (TREE_CODE (t) == LABEL_DECL
+ && FORCED_LABEL (t)))
return bitmap_bit_p ((bitmap)data, DECL_UID (t));
/* For DECL_BY_REFERENCE, the return value is actually a pointer. We want
@@ -213,6 +217,7 @@ verify_non_ssa_vars (struct split_point
edge e;
edge_iterator ei;
bool ok = true;
+ basic_block bb;
FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, current->entry_bb->preds)
if (e->src != ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)
@@ -225,8 +230,8 @@ verify_non_ssa_vars (struct split_point
while (!worklist.is_empty ())
{
gimple_stmt_iterator bsi;
- basic_block bb = worklist.pop ();
+ bb = worklist.pop ();
FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, bb->preds)
if (e->src != ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)
&& bitmap_set_bit (seen, e->src->index))
@@ -250,10 +255,10 @@ verify_non_ssa_vars (struct split_point
if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_LABEL
&& test_nonssa_use (stmt, gimple_label_label (stmt),
NULL_TREE, non_ssa_vars))
- {
- ok = false;
- goto done;
- }
+ {
+ ok = false;
+ goto done;
+ }
}
for (bsi = gsi_start_phis (bb); !gsi_end_p (bsi); gsi_next (&bsi))
{
@@ -286,6 +291,27 @@ verify_non_ssa_vars (struct split_point
}
}
}
+
+ /* Verify that the rest of function does not define any label
+ used by the split part. */
+ FOR_EACH_BB_FN (bb, cfun)
+ if (!bitmap_bit_p (current->split_bbs, bb->index)
+ && !bitmap_bit_p (seen, bb->index))
+ {
+ gimple_stmt_iterator bsi;
+ for (bsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (bsi); gsi_next (&bsi))
+ if (gimple_code (gsi_stmt (bsi)) == GIMPLE_LABEL
+ && test_nonssa_use (gsi_stmt (bsi),
+ gimple_label_label (gsi_stmt (bsi)),
+ NULL_TREE, non_ssa_vars))
+ {
+ ok = false;
+ goto done;
+ }
+ else if (gimple_code (gsi_stmt (bsi)) != GIMPLE_LABEL)
+ break;
+ }
+
done:
BITMAP_FREE (seen);
worklist.release ();
@@ -735,7 +761,8 @@ mark_nonssa_use (gimple, tree t, tree, v
if ((TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
&& auto_var_in_fn_p (t, current_function_decl))
|| TREE_CODE (t) == RESULT_DECL
- || TREE_CODE (t) == LABEL_DECL)
+ || (TREE_CODE (t) == LABEL_DECL
+ && FORCED_LABEL (t)))
bitmap_set_bit ((bitmap)data, DECL_UID (t));
/* For DECL_BY_REFERENCE, the return value is actually a pointer. We want
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63186.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr63186.c (revision 215149)
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+/* { dg-do link } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+void *a;
+int b, c, d;
+
+void
+bar ()
+{
+ switch (c)
+ {
+ case 0:
+ lab:
+ __asm__ ("");
+ return;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ b = 0;
+ d = 0;
+ a = &&lab;
+}
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+ bar ();
+}
+main()
+{
+}
2014-10-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Backported from mainline
2014-09-18 Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
PR debug/63285
* haifa-sched.c (schedule_block): Advance cycle at the end of BB
if advance != 0.
* gcc.target/i386/pr63285.c: New test.
--- gcc/haifa-sched.c (revision 215363)
+++ gcc/haifa-sched.c (revision 215364)
@@ -6473,7 +6473,7 @@ schedule_block (basic_block *target_bb,
if (ls.modulo_epilogue)
success = true;
end_schedule:
- if (!ls.first_cycle_insn_p)
+ if (!ls.first_cycle_insn_p || advance)
advance_one_cycle ();
perform_replacements_new_cycle ();
if (modulo_ii > 0)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr63285.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr63285.c (revision 215364)
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fcompare-debug" } */
+
+struct S { int a; };
+struct T { int b, c; } a;
+long b;
+int c, d;
+void bar (int, int);
+void baz (void *, int);
+
+void
+foo (struct S *x, int y, int z, void *f, int *p, struct T *e)
+{
+ while (x)
+ {
+ baz (f, &d > p);
+ if (z & 1)
+ bar (f > (void *) &f, z);
+ }
+ if (c)
+ {
+ asm ("" : "+m" (a) : "i" (0));
+ y--;
+ }
+ if (e->b == e->c)
+ c = y;
+ y--;
+}
2014-10-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/63306
Backported from mainline
2014-08-01 James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com>
PR regression/61510
* cgraphunit.c (analyze_functions): Use get_create rather than get
for decls which are clones of abstract functions.
* g++.dg/ipa/pr63306.C: New test.
--- gcc/cgraphunit.c (revision 213424)
+++ gcc/cgraphunit.c (revision 213425)
@@ -1038,7 +1038,7 @@ analyze_functions (void)
if (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (decl))
{
struct cgraph_node *origin_node
- = cgraph_get_node (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (decl));
+ = cgraph_get_create_node (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (decl));
origin_node->used_as_abstract_origin = true;
}
}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr63306.C 2014-09-30 11:38:12.677972771 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr63306.C 2014-10-01 10:13:13.088369362 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// PR c++/63306
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template <typename...>
+class A;
+
+class B
+{
+ B (const int &, const A<int, int> &);
+};
+
+B::B (const int &, const A<int, int> &)
+{
+}
