> I'd guess you don't want to flush on DEBUG_INSN_Ps, because then you'd flush
> differently between -g and -g0. So perhaps something like:
yes, If I skipped to flush all DEBUG_INSN_Ps, then dependence lists
are the same under -g0 and -g. I bootstrapped Jakub's change on
x86_64-linux with no errors.
thanks, Dinar.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:11:24AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 08:39:58AM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>> > I am investigating the problem.
>>
>> I'd guess you don't want to flush on DEBUG_INSN_Ps, because then you'd flush
>> differently between -g and -g0. So perhaps something like:
>
> Now bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux. I see you've
> already reverted in the mean time, so ok for trunk this way?
>
> 2013-06-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR rtl-optimization/57268
> * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Don't flush_pedning_lists
> if DEBUG_INSN_P (insn).
>
> Reapply
> 2013-05-31 Dinar Temirbulatov <di...@kugelworks.com>
>
> PR rtl-optimization/57268
> * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Flush dependence lists if
> the sum of the read and write lists exceeds MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH.
>
> --- gcc/sched-deps.c (revision 199576)
> +++ gcc/sched-deps.c (revision 199575)
> @@ -2690,8 +2690,15 @@
>
> /* Always add these dependencies to pending_reads, since
> this insn may be followed by a write. */
> - if (!deps->readonly)
> - add_insn_mem_dependence (deps, true, insn, x);
> + if (!deps->readonly)
> + {
> + if ((deps->pending_read_list_length
> + + deps->pending_write_list_length)
> + > MAX_PENDING_LIST_LENGTH
> + && !DEBUG_INSN_P (insn))
> + flush_pending_lists (deps, insn, true, true);
> + add_insn_mem_dependence (deps, true, insn, x);
> + }
>
> sched_analyze_2 (deps, XEXP (x, 0), insn);
>
>
> Jakub
