On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Changing the coalesce cost to MUST_COALESCE_COST for
>> PARM_DECLs and RESULT_DECLs should add the required
>> checking (we'll ICE if we cannot honor that coalescing request).
>> Note that the code also has a !DECL_IGNORED_P check, so
>> ev
> Changing the coalesce cost to MUST_COALESCE_COST for
> PARM_DECLs and RESULT_DECLs should add the required
> checking (we'll ICE if we cannot honor that coalescing request).
> Note that the code also has a !DECL_IGNORED_P check, so
> eventually the expansion code change should restrict itself to
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hmm, at -O0 we should be able to coalesce all SSA names of a
>> DECL. So in theory the following should work:
>
> Yes, the attached patch introduces no regressions in the testsuite. How
> robust is that though? Do we need some checking f
> Hmm, at -O0 we should be able to coalesce all SSA names of a
> DECL. So in theory the following should work:
Yes, the attached patch introduces no regressions in the testsuite. How
robust is that though? Do we need some checking for it?
* cfgexpand.c (expand_used_vars): Allocate sp
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since the switch to SSA form at -O0, the compiler generates wrong debug info
> for something like:
>
> void
> foo (int i)
> {
> int j = 0;
> i = 1;
> j = j + 1; /* BREAK */
> }
>
> If you try to display the value of i after br
