> 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
