On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok. Let's watch for fallout...
Yeah, we'll see. Commited.
Marek
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:48PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> > Maybe here:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00835.html
>
> Well this one is definitely not caused by the new verifier bits above.
I've seen this locally when testi
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:48PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> Maybe here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00835.html
Well this one is definitely not caused by the new verifier bits above.
Marek
On 02/08/2013 12:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
+ /* Check the headers. */
+ FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
+{
+ /* Skip BBs in the root tree. */
+ if (bb->loop_father == current_loops->
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > + /* Check the headers. */
> > > + FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Skip BBs in the root tree. */
> > > + if (bb->loop_father == current_loops->tree_root)
> > > +
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > + /* Check the headers. */
> > + FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
> > +{
> > + /* Skip BBs in the root tree. */
> > + if (bb->loop_father == current_loops->tree_root)
> > + continue;
>
> You shouldn't need this ... it will mis
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:14:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'd say "loop with header %d not in loop tree" here. Eventually
> > the header detection should be shared with the code in flow_loops_find
> > to avoid divergence. I'm making changes to
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:14:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'd say "loop with header %d not in loop tree" here. Eventually
> the header detection should be shared with the code in flow_loops_find
> to avoid divergence. I'm making changes to the flow_loops_find code
> at the moment and will
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This patch extends verify_loop_structure by checking that header's
> are really its own headers (this proved as useful in PR56181).
> The bulk of the code is taken from flow_loops_find.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64 linux. The only fallout now is (for C/C+
This patch extends verify_loop_structure by checking that header's
are really its own headers (this proved as useful in PR56181).
The bulk of the code is taken from flow_loops_find.
Bootstrapped on x86_64 linux. The only fallout now is (for C/C++):
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr54458.c -O3 -fomit-frame
10 matches
Mail list logo
