This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/37315] [4.4 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/931018-1.c int-compare.c ieee/inf-2.c mzero6.c
- From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 2 Sep 2008 10:14:30 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/37315] [4.4 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/931018-1.c int-compare.c ieee/inf-2.c mzero6.c
- References: <bug-37315-507@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-09-02 10:14 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/931018-1.c int-compare.c
ieee/inf-2.c mzero6.c
> Honza, why is tree-inline.c:initialize_cfun not calling
> allocate_struct_function and *then* change whatever elements need changing?
> There's no comment to reveal the reason. Now, you're just allocating a cleared
> area and doing a shallow-copy, which causes the clone to have e.g. the same
> cfun->machine. Badness results.
Well, the code is not mine, but it was wirtten at a time struct_function
did hold a lot of extra stuff. I will take a look.
Why do we allocate MDEP parts of cfun so early? I will try to deffer it
to later stage of compilation.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37315