On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > Sure, but then you can still have the issue of an inconsistency.
> > Thus, would you then remove the remaining asserts?
> >
> > I believe in the end the proper fix is to _not_ throw away
> > cgraph edges all the time, but keep them up-to-date and th
Sure, but then you can still have the issue of an inconsistency.
Thus, would you then remove the remaining asserts?
I believe in the end the proper fix is to _not_ throw away
cgraph edges all the time, but keep them up-to-date and thus
make the stmt flag not necessary. (we can define "up-to-dat
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 09:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > The above looks ok to me, but I don't want the
> > gimple_call_set_cannot_inline change (if it is in the tree - I have
> > not yet recovered from three weeks of vacation). The edge attribute
>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 09:04, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The above looks ok to me, but I don't want the
> gimple_call_set_cannot_inline change (if it is in the tree - I have
> not yet recovered from three weeks of vacation). The edge attribute
> is "recomputed" when necessary.
The original patch
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 07:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Sure, but then you can still have the issue of an inconsistency.
>
> Not if we make the edge attribute secondary to the statement
> attribute. Given that can_inline_edge_p() is the *only* tester
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 07:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Sure, but then you can still have the issue of an inconsistency.
Not if we make the edge attribute secondary to the statement
attribute. Given that can_inline_edge_p() is the *only* tester for
this attribute, what I was thinking was to chan
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 05:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> > This caused:
> >> >
> >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
> >>
> >>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 05:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> > This caused:
>> >
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
>>
>> Thanks. I'm on it.
>
> The patch was wrong, please revert it
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > This caused:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
>
> Thanks. I'm on it.
The patch was wrong, please revert it. At the gimple stmt
modification level we shouldn't modify the c
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Iain, could you let me know if the attached patch fixes your problem?
> The patch changes gimple_call_set_cannot_inline to update the
> corresponding callgraph edge, if needed. I did not touch any of the
> other calls, because sometimes we are calling t
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 07:02, Iain Sandoe
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Oct 2011, at 13:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We fail to keep the cannot-inline flag up-to-date when turning
> >> indirect to direct calls. The following patch arranges to do
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
> This caused:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
Thanks. I'm on it.
Diego.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Iain, could you let me know if the attached patch fixes your problem?
> The patch changes gimple_call_set_cannot_inline to update the
> corresponding callgraph edge, if needed. I did not touch any of the
> other calls, because sometimes we a
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:50, Iain Sandoe
wrote:
>
> On 29 Nov 2011, at 13:44, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> Iain, could you let me know if the attached patch fixes your problem?
>
> apologies for not responding to the last message -
> - Richi has already resolved the Ada issue as far as it affected
On 29 Nov 2011, at 13:44, Diego Novillo wrote:
Iain, could you let me know if the attached patch fixes your problem?
apologies for not responding to the last message -
- Richi has already resolved the Ada issue as far as it affected
x86-64/darwin.
I assumed your message was addressed more
Iain, could you let me know if the attached patch fixes your problem?
The patch changes gimple_call_set_cannot_inline to update the
corresponding callgraph edge, if needed. I did not touch any of the
other calls, because sometimes we are calling this function in IPA
mode, and so we don't know what
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 07:02, Iain Sandoe
wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2011, at 13:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>
>> We fail to keep the cannot-inline flag up-to-date when turning
>> indirect to direct calls. The following patch arranges to do
>> this during statement folding (which should always be ca
On 28 Oct 2011, at 13:57, Richard Guenther wrote:
We fail to keep the cannot-inline flag up-to-date when turning
indirect to direct calls. The following patch arranges to do
this during statement folding (which should always be called
when that happens). It also makes sure to copy the update
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On 29/10/2011, at 1:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>
>> We fail to keep the cannot-inline flag up-to-date when turning
>> indirect to direct calls. The following patch arranges to do
>> this during statement folding (which should always
On 29/10/2011, at 1:57 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> We fail to keep the cannot-inline flag up-to-date when turning
> indirect to direct calls. The following patch arranges to do
> this during statement folding (which should always be called
> when that happens). It also makes sure to copy th
20 matches
Mail list logo
