Re: [PING][PATCH, PR67709 ] Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create

[Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries at mentor dot com>]

On 16/02/16 12:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > >On 16/02/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > > > > >>>AFAIU, it's not a release regression given that:
> > > > > > >>>- this has failed since 4.9.0, and
> > > > > > >>>- the test-case is not supported in 4.8,
> > > > > > >>>so we're not required to fix it in 4.9 and 5 branches.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>But, the test-case does fail in 5 and 4.9 branches, and the fix seems simple
> > > > > > >>>enough to not have the risk of introducing breakage in the release branches.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>OK for 4.9/5 branch?
> > > > >Okay.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >Hmm, it doesn't apply cleanly.
> > >
> > >The trunk version of simd_clone_create also contains: 'Fix ICE for SIMD
> > >clones usage in LTO' (
> > >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00434.html  ), which adds the
> > >'in_other_partition' propagation in simd_clone_create.
> > >
> > >That's also not a release regression (reproduces with 4.9.0 release, not
> > >supported in 4.8), and still reproduces on 4.9 and 5 branches.
> > >
> > >OK to backport 'Fix ICE for SIMD clones usage in LTO' to 4.9/5 branch?
> Ok.

Committed both patches to 4.9 and 5 branches.

In order to run testsuite/libgomp.fortran/declare-simd-4.f90 with the 
4.9 branch build, I needed in addition:
- r212268
  https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=212268
  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00218.html
- r219606
  https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=219606
  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00615.html

Should these also be back-ported to 4.9 branch (and in case of r219606, 
also follow-up fix r219722, 
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219722&root=gcc&view=rev , fix for 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64605 )?

Thanks,
- Tom