On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:10:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Well, you have until the end of next week ;) For GIMPLE this is
> > a switch with all cases going to the same basic-block, right?
> > I think we optimize that in cleanup_control_expr_gra
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:10:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Well, you have until the end of next week ;) For GIMPLE this is
> a switch with all cases going to the same basic-block, right?
> I think we optimize that in cleanup_control_expr_graph via the
> single_succ_p case?
No, it is a swit
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > If you want, I can try instead of disabling it for tablejumps
> > > just move the label.
> >
> > Yeah, I'd prefer that - it can't be too difficult, no?
>
> So like this (tested just o
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > If you want, I can try instead of disabling it for tablejumps
> > just move the label.
>
> Yeah, I'd prefer that - it can't be too difficult, no?
So like this (tested just on the testcase, fully bootstrap/regtest
will follow)?
>
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:15:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I wonder why post_order_compute calls tidy_fallthru_edges at al
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:15:14AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > I wonder why post_order_compute calls tidy_fallthru_edges at all - won't
> > > that break the just computed postord
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I wonder why post_order_compute calls tidy_fallthru_edges at all - won't
> > that break the just computed postorder?
>
> Dunno, but I think it shouldn't break anything, the function does
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I wonder why post_order_compute calls tidy_fallthru_edges at all - won't
> that break the just computed postorder?
Dunno, but I think it shouldn't break anything, the function doesn't remove
any blocks, just in the typical case of a
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > The following testcase is miscompiled on s390x. The problem is that there
> > is massive cross-jumping going on, and after that post_order_compute
> > decides to call tidy_fallthru_edges, incl
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled on s390x. The problem is that there
> is massive cross-jumping going on, and after that post_order_compute
> decides to call tidy_fallthru_edges, including on an edge from a bb ending
> with a table jump to
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled on s390x. The problem is that there
is massive cross-jumping going on, and after that post_order_compute
decides to call tidy_fallthru_edges, including on an edge from a bb ending
with a table jump to a bb with now a single successor where all the
jump_ta
11 matches
Mail list logo
