On Jul 13, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> The right OMP region suggests something wrt correctness
Yeah, as Jakub wrote, we have to choose a block that's in the same
region the label belongs to. The proposed patch doesn't change that, it
just uses the entry block instead of the previous block, if
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:52 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:56:41AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The comment above says
> >
> > /* During cfg pass make sure to put orphaned labels
> > into the right OMP region. */
> >
> > and the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:56:41AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> The comment above says
>
> /* During cfg pass make sure to put orphaned labels
> into the right OMP region. */
>
> and the full guard is
>
> if ((unsigned) bb->index < bb_to_om
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 5:11 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>
> pr42739.C, complicated by some extra wrappers and cleanups from a
> feature I'm working on, got me very confused because a user label
> ended up in a cleanup introduced by my pass, where it couldn't
> possibly have been initially.
>
> Th
pr42739.C, complicated by some extra wrappers and cleanups from a
feature I'm working on, got me very confused because a user label
ended up in a cleanup introduced by my pass, where it couldn't
possibly have been initially.
The current logic may move such an unreachable user label multiple
time
