> It was also on the mailing list too. If I'd had the reference to 57940,
> I wouldn't have approved the patch given your comment from July 20.
Understood. I missed the message on the list and remembered only the PR.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 08/21/2013 11:32 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
(I can't find the original mail either in my mailbox or in the archives).
It's PR rtl-optimization/57940.
It was also on the mailing list too. If I'd had the reference to 57940,
I wouldn't have approved the patch given your comment from July 20.
> (I can't find the original mail either in my mailbox or in the archives).
It's PR rtl-optimization/57940.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 08:25 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> This patch has caused a bootstrap failure for powerpc-aix and probably
>> powerpc64-linux. GCC segfaults and core dumps during stage2
>> configure.
>>
>> The motivation for this patch seems faul
On 08/21/2013 08:25 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
This patch has caused a bootstrap failure for powerpc-aix and probably
powerpc64-linux. GCC segfaults and core dumps during stage2
configure.
The motivation for this patch seems faulty and I strongly request that
it be reverted.
Instead of going ins
This patch has caused a bootstrap failure for powerpc-aix and probably
powerpc64-linux. GCC segfaults and core dumps during stage2
configure.
The motivation for this patch seems faulty and I strongly request that
it be reverted.
PR bootstrap/58206
Thanks, David
On 08/19/2013 11:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/20/2013 03:02 AM, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> If delete_unmarked_insns deletes some insn, DF state might be
>> out of date, and, regs_ever_live might contain unused registers till
>> the end.
(I can't find the original mail either in my ma
On 07/20/2013 03:02 AM, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
2013-07-20 Alexey Makhalov mailto:makhal...@gmail.com>>
* dce.c (fini_dce): Call df_analyze again just in case
delete_unmarked_insns
removed anything.
Thanks. Installed.
jeff
On 07/20/2013 03:02 AM, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
Hello!
If delete_unmarked_insns deletes some insn, DF state might be
out of date, and, regs_ever_live might contain unused registers till the end.
Fixed by forcing regs_ever_live update and rerunning df_analyze () at
fini_dce().
I found this bug