> This part is ok.
Committed.
> > (ipa_tm_transform_calls_1): Rename from ipa_tm_transform_calls.
> > Only process one block.
> > (ipa_tm_transform_calls): Iterate through CFG and call helper
> > function.
>
> This part isn't. As we discussed on IRC, you're missing a check
> for
On 02/03/2010 10:26 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
I don't think that's true at all. You showed that the walking was
incorrect; I don't see you you can now argue that it is correct,
regardless of inlining and jump threading.
All one needs to create the cfg that exhibits the problem is
multiple exits
> I don't think that's true at all. You showed that the walking was
> incorrect; I don't see you you can now argue that it is correct,
> regardless of inlining and jump threading.
>
> All one needs to create the cfg that exhibits the problem is
> multiple exits from the transaction. It's not ter
On 01/29/2010 08:56 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Hey!
With my last patch, we only have 3 instances of dominator tree walks
left in the tree, all in the TM ipa pass.
I believe we can leave those as they are, since the TM ipa pass runs
early enough that nothing has altered control flow such that
cod
Hey!
With my last patch, we only have 3 instances of dominator tree walks
left in the tree, all in the TM ipa pass.
I believe we can leave those as they are, since the TM ipa pass runs
early enough that nothing has altered control flow such that
code outside of a transaction ends up inside a tran
