This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.8 & 4.9] Backport of r211885
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "Yangfei (Felix)" <felix dot yang at huawei dot com>
- Cc: Felix Yang <fei dot yang0953 at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:07:29 +0200
- Subject: Re: [4.8 & 4.9] Backport of r211885
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFc0fxzW0jCw_d1n6fYmmEe+K6SfVn9eekD_M84rtHEpPQAttA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20141009085353 dot GJ1986 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <DA41BE1DDCA941489001C7FBD7A8820E55547E3A at szxema507-mbx dot china dot huawei dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:04:49AM +0000, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:00:24PM +0800, Felix Yang wrote:
> > > The enclosed patch for 4.8 & 4.9 branch is a backport of r211885 from trunk.
> > >
> > > The only change is to use:
> > >
> > > for (def_rec = DF_INSN_INFO_DEFS (insn_info); *def_rec; def_rec++)
> > >
> > > other than the new FOR_EACH_INSN_INFO_DEF interface.
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux for both branches. OK to apply?
> >
> > ChangeLog entry is missing, plus description why do you want to backport it.
> > If it fixes a bug on the branches, it would be better to have a bugzilla PR for that,
> > and definitely a testcase.
> >
>
> Yeah, I will add a ChangeLog entry for this patch when it is committed.
> I encountered the same issue when working on my local customized 4.8/4.9 branches. Not reproduceable with the official 4.8/4.9 branches.
> I thinks it's just an enhancement for the loop invariant pass to make it more versatile. It's better that 4.8/4.9 branches also inlcude this enhancement.
> OK?
If it is just an enhancement, then those generally are not backported to
release branches (exceptions possible of course, but there needs to be a
strong reason). Each pass has some risk of breaking something, exposing
previously only latent bugs in later passes etc.
Jakub