Re: Development plan *ducks* (Re: Loop optimizer issues)

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 13:00 US/Eastern, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > > For example, bug 11131, a mainline regression, doesn't look related 
> > > to
> > > unit-at-a-time.  But I just found out that your unit-at-a-time patch
> > > seems to have caused that bug to re-appear.  It's a pessimizes-code 
> > > bug,
> > > so regtesting could have missed it.  Now in this case there's a test
> > > case for it, but who knows what else may be wrong that we don't know
> > > about yet?
> > Well, this is the case of about any GCC patch.
> > I remember I fixed template1.C failure once already.  I will try to
> > figure out what happent to the patch.  I remmeber that it was related 
> > to
> > some hack in C++ cannot_inline function.
> Hmm, the testcase does not appear to fail in my setup (i686-linux too 
> as
> in the PR that is quite weird).  If it fails for you can you please 
> just
> step into cp_cannot_inline_tree_fn and figure out why it fails in foo1?
> The patch I was fixing was actually different problem and is already in
> the tree.


cp_cannot_inline_tree_fn does not even get called.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski