On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-05-10 21:13 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Curretly CSE may modify CFG and leave invalid dominance info. This patch
>>> improves track of CFG changes by CSE passes and frees dominance info if
>>> required. This allows to remove corresponding workaround from STV pass.
>>>
>>> Does it look OK?
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..9ef2a4d
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr70807.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>> +/* PR middle-end/70807 */
>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>>> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
>>> +
>>> +typedef int INT;
>>> +int a, b, c, d, e, f;
>>> +void fn1() {
>>> + INT g;
>>> + if (d && a)
>>> + ;
>>> + else if (e && b)
>>> + ;
>>> + else if (!a && !b && c)
>>> + ;
>>> + else if (b && d || a && e)
>>> + a = 0;
>>> + f = g || d;
>>> +}
>>
>> Does this test fail without the fix?
>
> Yes, I creduced it from a libgcc build fail caused by the trigger
> patch from the tracker.
>
This test only uses int, which is 32-bit. How does it trigger
STV?
--
H.J.
