This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.

From: Christian Bruel <christian dot bruel at st dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:46:56 +0200
Subject: Re: shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.
References: <504F2DA8.3050208@st.com> <CABu31nO83ySAhi=p7gaKD4v+-zBLwcC8yEgp5vB6R=y2u8zz+Q@mail.gmail.com> <504F595B.1030403@st.com> <CABu31nOcMMj84tjoMwkHpKcRG5TNpn65ttRbfH+2pvTRPV_OOw@mail.gmail.com>

On 09/11/2012 05:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> wrote:
>> Actually, the edge is fairly simple. I have
>>
>> BB5 (BB_COLD_PARTITION) -> BB10 (BB_HOT_PARTITION) -> EXIT
>>
>> and BB10 has no other incoming edges. and we are duplicating it.
> 
> That is wrong, should never happen. Is there a test case to play with?

Thanks for the confirmation. The case happens on SH only when applying
the simple_return patch [PR target/54546] on the bb-reorder test from
the testsuite.

> It'd be good to have a PR for this.

I'll update the PR above with what I find, lets see if this turns out to
be target independent.

thanks

Christian

> 
> Ciao!
> Steven
>

References:
- shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.
  - From: Christian Bruel
- Re: shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.
  - From: Christian Bruel
- Re: shrink-wrapping duplicates BBs across partitions.
  - From: Steven Bosscher

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]