> Hi Honza & Christophe,
>
> I have tested your suggested fix. It does fix the regression.
> Here is a simple patch for it.
>
> After r249013, die () and dump_stack () are both in cold section. This makes
> the compiler generate bl instruction for the function call, instead of
> honoring the -mlo
Hi Honza & Christophe,
I have tested your suggested fix. It does fix the regression.
Here is a simple patch for it.
After r249013, die () and dump_stack () are both in cold section. This makes
the compiler generate bl instruction for the function call, instead of
honoring the -mlong-calls option
Hi,
this is patch I comitted.
Thanks!
Honza
* predict.c (unlikely_executed_stmt_p): Cleanup.
Index: predict.c
===
--- predict.c (revision 249057)
+++ predict.c (working copy)
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ unlikely_executed_stmt_p (g
> Since this commit (r249013), I've noticed a regression on arm targets:
> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cold-lc.c scan-assembler-not bl[^\n]*dump_stack
I think that is because we optimize the testcase:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -mlong-calls" } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "bl\[
Hi,
On 9 June 2017 at 08:43, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 8 June 2017 14:52:49 CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>Hi,
>>this patch adds static code to detect basic block with 0 execution
>>count.
>>Those are basic block either reached only by EH or those which leads to
>>call of
>>function deco
On 8 June 2017 14:52:49 CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>Hi,
>this patch adds static code to detect basic block with 0 execution
>count.
>Those are basic block either reached only by EH or those which leads to
>call of
>function decorated with cold attribute.
>
>Function decorated by noreturn is not suff
