Hi,
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/26/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Actually, resx/eh_dispatch always are the last BB statements, so the loop
> > doesn't need to look at all statements in a BB, making it quite somewhat
> > faster. Consider the tree-eh.c to be lo
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/26/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Actually, resx/eh_dispatch always are the last BB statements, so the loop
>> doesn't need to look at all statements in a BB, making it quite somewhat
>> faster. Consider the tree-eh.c to be
On 01/26/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Actually, resx/eh_dispatch always are the last BB statements, so the loop
> doesn't need to look at all statements in a BB, making it quite somewhat
> faster. Consider the tree-eh.c to be looking like so:
For the record, is this without optimization
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> so, the below adjusted testcase from PR48794 still fails for the same
> reasons (regions still referenced from RESX being removed). I was split
> minds about if that's a new bug or just an extension of the old bug, so
> I hijacked the old PR. In
Hi,
so, the below adjusted testcase from PR48794 still fails for the same
reasons (regions still referenced from RESX being removed). I was split
minds about if that's a new bug or just an extension of the old bug, so I
hijacked the old PR. In any case, remove_unreachable_handlers_no_lp needs
