Re: [tree-ssa] New tests

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <1054356456.21692.408.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo
 writes:
 >On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 19:18, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >> In message <1054335774.21692.385.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Nov
 >illo
 >>  writes:
 >>  >On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 18:09, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >>  >
 >>  >> The first shows a case where Diego's hack to avoid overlapping
 >>  >> lifetimes fails, thus leading to an abort during the out of SSA
 >>  >> translation.
 >>  >> 
 >>  >Really?  How come var_is_live is never called on this test case?  The
 >>  >var_is_live kludge is only called when we're doing redundant assignments
 >>  >and copy-prop while renaming.  In fact, the bug was that we are *not*
 >>  >calling the hack.
 >> No, we're calling it just fine.
 >>
 >You must have something different in your tree.  I'm working with a
 >pristine copy and we are NOT calling var_is_live for this testcase!
We're looking at different testcases -- I was referring back to the 
java one, which I consider more important.

There's a variety of ways to fix the one derived from rs6000.c, the
right one is to fix the hashing routines, but after a day poking at
them, I've come to the conclusion that's more difficult than it may
at first appear.

Just for fun, insert this code into avail_expr_eq just before it's
about to return true (both cases).  Then do some builds and watch
things die...

#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
          if (avail_expr_hash (s1) != avail_expr_hash (s2))
            abort ();
#endif



jeff