On 5/28/19 10:31 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Was it your intention?
Hi.
No ;) fixed as r271729.
Thanks for reporting,
Martin
Hi Martin,
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 13:30, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/27/19 2:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> +/* Compare loop information for basic blocks BB1 and BB2. */
> >> +
> >> +bool
> >> +func_checker::compare_loops (bas
Hi,
On Tue, May 28 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:29:54PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Yes, makes sense.
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
>> > BTW, unrelated to this patch, what does ICF do if e.g. SSA_NAME_PT
On 5/28/19 1:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:29:54PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Yes, makes sense.
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
>>> BTW, unrelated to this patch, what does ICF do if e.g. SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:29:54PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Yes, makes sense.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ok, thanks.
> > BTW, unrelated to this patch, what does ICF do if e.g. SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
> > or SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO is different between ot
iltin_unreachable ();
> both optimized away into SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO of the argument before IPA (or
> do we optimize that away only after IPA?).
>
> Jakub
>
Can you please provide a self-contained test-case?
Thanks,
Martin
>From 82b84914c3d40094be2ff68498a9120e9b7ece0b Mo
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> +/* Compare loop information for basic blocks BB1 and BB2. */
> +
> +bool
> +func_checker::compare_loops (basic_block bb1, basic_block bb2)
> +{
> + if ((bb1->loop_father == NULL) != (bb2->loop_father == NULL))
> +return return_f
>> + return return_false_with_msg ("simduid");
>>
>> The above looks reasonable if we are guaranteed we are talking about a loop
>> corresponding between the two functions.
>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/pr9
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:48:03AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2019-05-23 Martin Liska
> >
> > PR ipa/90555
> > * ipa-icf-gimple.c (func_checker::compare_loops): New function.
> > * ipa-icf-gim
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:48:03AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-05-23 Martin Liska
>
> PR ipa/90555
> * ipa-icf-gimple.c (func_checker::compare_loops): New function.
> * ipa-icf-gimple.h (func_checker::compare_loops): Likewise.
> * ipa-icf.c (sem
Hi.
The patch is about more fine comparison of loop fields that
are mentioned in the PR.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-23 Martin Liska
PR ipa/90555
* ipa-icf-gimple.c (func
11 matches
Mail list logo