This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR52001] too many cse reverse equiv exprs (take2)
Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Feb 13, 2012, Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> wrote:
>> does this avoid the kind of memrefs_conflict_p cycle I was seeing in:
> I don't know that it does, I'd missed that bit.
> If you still have a preprocessed testcase, I'd be glad to give it a
> quick try. Failing that, I can try a build on my yeeloong, but... that
> takes forever minus a few days ;-)
Unfortunately, I've not kept the preprocessed source, and I'd need to
wind back to an old compiler to get it. If it's "in practice" rather
than "in theory" that we're talking about, then I'm fine with putting
it in and seeing what breaks. But I'd really prefer if we knew in
theory. :-) Like I say, my understanding before this patch series went
in was that cselib values weren't supposed to be cyclic. Now that they are,
what should consumers like memrefs_conflict_p do to avoid getting stuck?