Re: RFA: Revert revision 164552

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 04:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:02, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>> H.J.,
>>>
>>>> Revision 164552:
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00849.html
>>>>
>>>> which fixes:
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44374
>>>>
>>>> a mixed optimization bug, but caused many failures:
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46257
>>>>
>>>> including bootstrap failures on x86. It was reported more than a month ago
>>>> and nothing has changed.  Should it be reverted for now?
>>>
>>> I think it should: it probably also caused PR bootstrap/46018 and
>>> certainly PR rtl-optimization/46114, where Bernd indicated that he would
>>> be away for several weeks.
>>
>> I agree.  Let's revert the patch.  Bernd should be able to figure out
>> a fix after he gets back.
>
> Now that there are no more vacations and other problems to stop me from
> fixing it, I propose that the patch be reapplied in the form below.
>
> Fixes:
> PR46114: Reported fixed by the patch in PR46238, which is included in
> the patch below.
> PR45816, PR45801: Needed a debug-insns fix from aoliva, which has been
> committed in the meantime.
> PR45865: Fixed by testing for NOTE_INSN_EPILOGUE_BEG in two places so as
> to not merge epilogues.
> PR46018: Doesn't look like the original failure was caused by my patch.
> I'm guessing the PR46114 fix is the solution here as well (as Rainer
> reported no problems on Solaris with that fix applied).
>
> I've also made some changes to preserve an unrelated ifcvt fix from Eric
> that has been applied in the same area in the meantime.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on i686-linux, all languages. Rainer,
> it would be helpful if you could do a Solaris test.
>

This caused:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908


-- 
H.J.