> @Honza: PING^2
> 
> On 2/4/19 9:09 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > @Honza: PING^1
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > On 1/24/19 9:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> On 1/23/19 7:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> Hi Martin,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:29:40AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/cfgrtl.c b/gcc/cfgrtl.c
> >>>> index 172bdf585d0..5dd316efb63 100644
> >>>> --- a/gcc/cfgrtl.c
> >>>> +++ b/gcc/cfgrtl.c
> >>>> @@ -4396,6 +4396,25 @@ cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch (edge e, 
> >>>> basic_block dest)
> >>>>                   "Removing crossing jump while redirecting edge form %i 
> >>>> to %i\n",
> >>>>                   e->src->index, dest->index);
> >>>>        delete_insn (BB_END (src));
> >>>> +
> >>>> +      /* Unlink a BARRIER that can be still in BB_FOOTER.  */
> >>>> +      rtx_insn *insn = BB_FOOTER (src);
> >>>> +      while (insn != NULL_RTX && !BARRIER_P (insn))
> >>>> +        insn = NEXT_INSN (insn);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +      if (insn != NULL_RTX)
> >>>> +        {
> >>>> +          if (insn == BB_FOOTER (src))
> >>>> +            BB_FOOTER (src) = NULL;
> >>>> +          else
> >>>> +            {
> >>>> +              if (PREV_INSN (insn))
> >>>> +                SET_NEXT_INSN (PREV_INSN (insn)) = NEXT_INSN (insn);
> >>>> +              if (NEXT_INSN (insn))
> >>>> +                SET_PREV_INSN (NEXT_INSN (insn)) = PREV_INSN (insn);
> >>>> +            }
> >>>> +        }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> combine.c has nicer code to do this, in update_cfg_for_uncondjump.  Split
> >>> it out into some common routine?  Something in cfgrtl.c I guess.
> >>
> >> Thanks Segher for the advice. I'll do it as soon as Honza will make a 
> >> review
> >> about the fundament of the patch.

Aha, yes, fundament of the patch is obvious - the barrier has to go :)
There is same hunk of code in cfgrtl.c:1061, so please just merge it
Note that I am not rtl reviewer. But as author of the code I would say
that the updated patch can go in as obvious.

Honza
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Segher
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> 

Reply via email to