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] |
On 04/26/2016 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote:On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:Tested on Linux/x86-64. OK for trunk?+ /* FIXME: Since the CSE pass may change dominance info, which isn't + expected by the fwprop pass, call free_dominance_info to + invalidate dominance info. Otherwise, the fwprop pass may crash + when dominance info is changed. */ + if (TARGET_64BIT) + free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS); +Please resolve the above problem first, target-dependent sources are not the place to apply band-aids for middle-end problems. The thread with the proposed fix died in [1]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-03/msg00143.htmlfree_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS) has been called in other places to avoid this middle-end issue. I don't know when the middle-end will be fixed. I don't think this target optimization should be penalized by the middle-end issue.Let's ask Richard if he is OK with the workaround...Well, it's ultimately your call (it's a workaround in the target). Of course I'd like to see the underlying issue fixed and the workarounds in "other places" be removed.
Agreed. It's fundamentally papering over a problem elsewhere. jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |