On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nils...@axis.com> wrote: >> From: Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> >> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100 > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson >> <hans-peter.nils...@axis.com> wrote: >> >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@axis.com> >> >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 >> > >> >> > From: Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> >> >> > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: >> >> >> >> > * function.c (bb_active_p): Delete. >> >> > (dup_block_and_redirect, active_insn_between): New functions. >> >> > (convert_jumps_to_returns, emit_return_for_exit): New functions, >> >> > split out from.. >> >> > (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): ..here. Delete >> >> > shadowing variables. Don't do prologue register clobber tests >> >> > when shrink wrapping already failed. Delete all last_bb_active >> >> > code. Instead compute tail block candidates for duplicating >> >> > exit path. Remove these from antic set. Duplicate tails when >> >> > reached from both blocks needing a prologue/epilogue and >> >> > blocks not needing such. >> >> > * ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Test both flag_shrink_wrap and >> >> > HAVE_simple_return. >> >> > * bb-reorder.c (get_uncond_jump_length): Make global. >> >> > * bb-reorder.h (get_uncond_jump_length): Declare. >> >> > * cfgrtl.c (rtl_create_basic_block): Comment typo fix. >> >> > (rtl_split_edge): Likewise. Warning fix. >> >> > (rtl_duplicate_bb): New function. >> >> > (rtl_cfg_hooks): Enable can_duplicate_block_p and >> >> > duplicate_block. >> >> >> >> This (a revision in the range 181187:181189) broke build for >> >> cris-elf like so: >> >> See PR51051. >> > >> > Given that this also broke arm-linux-gnueabi, a primary >> > platform, and Alan being absent until the 15th according to a >> > message on IRC, I move to revert r181188. >> >> Is there a PR for the arm issue? > > It's covered by the same PR, see comment #1. > I've now updated the target field. > >> > I think I need someone with appropriate write privileges to >> > agree with that, and to also give 48h for someone to fix the >> > problem. Sorry for not forthcoming on the second point. >> >> Did you or somebody else try to look into the problem? To decide >> whether it's the "best course of action" it would be nice to know if >> it's a simple error in the patch that is easy to fix. > > Nope, not really. Wouldn't FWIW, de jure matter, me not having > write privileges to the affected area. Though, I had a quick > look at the patch and nothing stood out except its > intrusiveness, and it seems the patch wasn't tested on a > !simple_return target (just "powerpc-linux" according to the > replied-to message).
Fair enough. You can count me as "one" then, and I'll defer to Bernd to either provide a fix or ack the revert. Thanks, Richard. > brgds, H-P >
