On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:18:54PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 15 June 2021 08:46:57 CEST, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:02 AM Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> > >wrote: > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> > >> > >> bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu, ok? > > > >OK. > > > >Thanks, > >Richard. > > > >> gcc/ChangeLog: > >> > >> * dominance.c (get_dominated_by): Return > >auto_vec<basic_block>. > >> * dominance.h (get_dominated_by): Likewise. > >> * auto-profile.c (afdo_find_equiv_class): Adjust. > >> * cfgloopmanip.c (duplicate_loop_to_header_edge): Likewise. > >> * loop-unroll.c (unroll_loop_runtime_iterations): Likewise. > >> * tree-cfg.c (test_linear_chain): Likewise. > >> (test_diamond): Likewise. > >> --- > > >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c > >> index 02256580c98..6bdd1a561fd 100644 > >> --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c > >> +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c > >> @@ -9917,22 +9917,20 @@ test_linear_chain () > >> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_a, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb_b)); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_b, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb_c)); > >> - vec<basic_block> dom_by_b = get_dominated_by (CDI_DOMINATORS, > >bb_b); > >> + auto_vec<basic_block> dom_by_b = get_dominated_by (CDI_DOMINATORS, > >bb_b); > >> ASSERT_EQ (1, dom_by_b.length ()); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_c, dom_by_b[0]); > >> free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS); > >> - dom_by_b.release (); > >> > >> /* Similarly for post-dominance: each BB in our chain is > >post-dominated > >> by the one after it. */ > >> calculate_dominance_info (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_b, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, > >bb_a)); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_c, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, > >bb_b)); > >> - vec<basic_block> postdom_by_b = get_dominated_by > >(CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, bb_b); > >> + auto_vec<basic_block> postdom_by_b = get_dominated_by > >(CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, bb_b); > >> ASSERT_EQ (1, postdom_by_b.length ()); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_a, postdom_by_b[0]); > >> free_dominance_info (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS); > >> - postdom_by_b.release (); > >> > >> pop_cfun (); > >> } > >> @@ -9991,10 +9989,10 @@ test_diamond () > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_a, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb_b)); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_a, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb_c)); > >> ASSERT_EQ (bb_a, get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb_d)); > >> - vec<basic_block> dom_by_a = get_dominated_by (CDI_DOMINATORS, > >bb_a); > >> + auto_vec<basic_block> dom_by_a = get_dominated_by (CDI_DOMINATORS, > >bb_a); > >> ASSERT_EQ (3, dom_by_a.length ()); /* B, C, D, in some order. */ > >> dom_by_a.release (); > > I'm curious why you keep the release() above and ...
There was no particular reason, I just didn't make a very complete search to remove them all, as they should be harmless. I'm certainly happy to remove them, but wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to go on a broader search for uses of release and see why they are necessary or remove them. thanks Trev
