On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> PR tree-optimization/22336
> * function.c (record_block_change): Check for
> cfun->ib_boundaries_block.
Ok. I don't see that we're going to get anything cleaner for 4.1.
r~
Hello,
> I think the patch is fine (although of course I cannot approve it).
>
> I, as it's author, do not. But, as I keep saying, I don't know what
> the proper fix is.
preventing record_block_change from working in this situation seems a
quite clean solution to me; of course, not expand
I think the patch is fine (although of course I cannot approve it).
I, as it's author, do not. But, as I keep saying, I don't know what
the proper fix is.
The more proper fix would be to never expand such expressions from ivopts;
What are "such expressions"?
Hello,
> If no one is suggesting an alternative, tested on x86 and x86_64-linux
> where it restores bootstrap (at last :), ok to commit?
I think the patch is fine (although of course I cannot approve it). The
more proper fix would be to never expand such expressions from ivopts;
I have a patch f
If no one is suggesting an alternative, tested on x86 and x86_64-linux
where it restores bootstrap (at last :), ok to commit?
We're down to 6 ACATS FAIL on x86_64 and 8 on x86:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00654.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00653.html
