On 03/15/2016 03:27 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:00:39PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
Right. Tolerant as in not crash.
So can someone please approve my ira.c:indirect_jump_optimize patch?
I'm not quite audacious enough to claim it is obvious.
Looks good to me.
Bernd
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:00:39PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Right. Tolerant as in not crash.
So can someone please approve my ira.c:indirect_jump_optimize patch?
I'm not quite audacious enough to claim it is obvious. The original
is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00720.html,
re
On 03/14/2016 03:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Undefined? Most likely. But we still have to do something sensible. As
Jakub noted, a user could create the problematic code just as easily as
DCE/DSE, so IRA probably needs to be tolerant of this situation.
So it seems like you're suggesting we l
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/12/2016 04:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On March 12, 2016 10:29:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:37:25PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> I believe Alan's point is DSE deleted the assignm
On 03/12/2016 04:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 12, 2016 10:29:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:37:25PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
I believe Alan's point is DSE deleted the assignment to x which
can't be
right as long as we've left in goto *&x.
The goto
On March 12, 2016 10:29:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:37:25PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > I believe Alan's point is DSE deleted the assignment to x which
>can't be
>> > right as long as we've left in goto *&x.
>> >
>> > The goto *&x should be a use of x and t
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:37:25PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I believe Alan's point is DSE deleted the assignment to x which can't be
> > right as long as we've left in goto *&x.
> >
> > The goto *&x should be a use of x and thus should have kept the assignment
> > live.
>
> Right, I wasn't tr
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:26:39AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/12/2016 12:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:43:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> >>The underlying problem happens somewhere in tree-ssa-dse.c. So we get
> >>an indirect jump to a random location instead of a j
On 03/12/2016 12:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:43:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
The underlying problem happens somewhere in tree-ssa-dse.c. So we get
an indirect jump to a random location instead of a jump to 0.
Well, the testcase is there just to make sure we don't I
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:43:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> The underlying problem happens somewhere in tree-ssa-dse.c. So we get
> an indirect jump to a random location instead of a jump to 0.
Well, the testcase is there just to make sure we don't ICE on it.
And, changing just DSE can't be a c
The underlying problem happens somewhere in tree-ssa-dse.c. So we get
an indirect jump to a random location instead of a jump to 0.
pr58164.c.035t.mergephi1
;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1389, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
foo ()
{
int x;
:
x = 0;
goto &x;
}
pr58164.c.0
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:39:58PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> I'm getting this crash on ia64 for gcc.c-torture/compile/pr58164.c:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x412286e0 in indirect_jump_optimize () at ../../gcc/ira.c:3865
> 3865 rtx_insn *def
I'm getting this crash on ia64 for gcc.c-torture/compile/pr58164.c:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x412286e0 in indirect_jump_optimize () at ../../gcc/ira.c:3865
3865 rtx_insn *def_insn = DF_REF_INSN (DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN (regno));
(gdb) bt
#0 0x412
On 03/10/2016 10:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
Doing the indirect jump optimization turned out to be quite easy.
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux, gcc-6, gcc-5 and
gcc-4.9. Bootstrap and regression test x86_64-linux still running.
OK to apply?
So much nicer. Ok, and thanks.
B
Doing the indirect jump optimization turned out to be quite easy.
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux, gcc-6, gcc-5 and
gcc-4.9. Bootstrap and regression test x86_64-linux still running.
OK to apply?
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/69195
PR rtl-optimization/47992
15 matches
Mail list logo
