https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- On 10/04/14 13:29, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> Jeff, what is intended here - should we not be threading both of these paths? > > I have a patch to make the mark_threaded_blocks checking of paths work > regardless of the ordering of paths in the vec. This fixes the > failure. This seems like a better solution. It'll decrease unnecessary block copying. > > The other approach is whenever we finish threading a path, go through > the vec of remaining paths and update the edges for any that have been > affected by the threading and that should instead include the > duplicated edges. That'd probably work too, but I suspect there's not much, if any, benefit to keeping both paths. Jeff
