On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:59 PM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On March 8, 2019 3:52:36 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > >On 3/8/19 7:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >> There's an old comment > >> > >> /* When cleanup_tree_cfg merges consecutive blocks, it may > >> perform some simplistic propagation when removing single > >> valued PHI nodes. This propagation may, in turn, cause the > >> SSA form to become out-of-date (see PR 22037). So, even > >> if the parent pass had not scheduled an SSA update, we may > >> still need to do one. */ > >> if (!(flags & TODO_update_ssa_any) && need_ssa_update_p (cfun)) > >> flags |= TODO_update_ssa; > >> > >> which is from times we've had multiple virtual operands. After > >> those went away we could still run into this for example when > >> propagating a non-const function address into an indirect call > >> through a const function type. This has been fixed as well > >> (we retain the const-ness of the call). Thus the above is > >> no longer necessary and we can simplify the code. > >> > >> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. > >> > >> I'm not really nervous about this change but if you think it > >> should wait for GCC 10 speak up. > >> > >> Richard. > >> > >> 2019-03-08 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > >> > >> * passes.c (execute_function_todo): Remove dead code. > >What's driving the desire to change this for gcc-9? I think it's a > >fine > >cleanup for gcc-10, but it's not clear to me we want to push it into > >gcc-9. > > Just that I came along this with the previous related CFG cleanup fix and got > the time to test it. > > Queued for GCC 10 instead.
Applied as r270832. Richard. > Richard. > > >jeff >
