On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > Please review this patch. Regression test is ok. I will do more > application testing to make sure the check is not too strict > (filtering out legal ic targets).
This one is ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > > David > > 2011-04-07 Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> > > * value-profile.c (function_decl_num_args): New function. > (check_ic_target): New function. > (gimple_ic_transform): Sanity check indirect call target. > * gimple-low.c (gimple_check_call_args): Interface change. > (gimple_check_call_matching_types): New function. > * tree-inline.c (tree_can_inline_p): Call new function. > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: >>> Hi, due to race conditions, it is common that the value profile >>> information for an indirect call site is 'corrupted' -- resulting in >>> false target function to be recorded. The value profile transformation >>> won't cause runtime problem as the path will never be executed, >>> however it may cause compile time ICE because of the incompatible >>> signature of the callee target. The attached patch does minimal sanity >>> check to make compiler happy in such cases. The fix was tested with >>> lots of MT programs and works really well in practice. >>> >>> Ok for trunk after testing? >> >> Please instead refactor and re-use gimple_check_call_args (). >> Also look at tree_can_inline_p () which has code to deal with >> result mismatches. >> >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >>> 2011-04-07 Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >>> >>> * value-profile.c (function_decl_num_args): New function. >>> (check_ic_target): New function. >>> (gimple_ic_transform): Sanity check indirect call target. >>> >> >
