https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6fc2f9337311c11dabcc464c808cbef205f17a52
commit r10-6106-g6fc2f9337311c11dabcc464c808cbef205f17a52
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note prepare_block_for_update has been this way since 2005 with
g:0bca51f080dfff5e943b1f1775d874a73bbc441a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 47679
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47679&action=edit
fully untested patch
This patch improves prepare_block_for_update but there might be others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a bug.
You requested inlining a lot. And that increases the number of basic blocks by
a lot because of recursive inlining.
I can decrease the stack recusriveness slightly by peeling of
