This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] live analysis on local static functions
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:32:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] live analysis on local static functions
- References: <20031014180700.GO6212@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <200310151806.h9FI6QME027848@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
> In message <20031014180700.GO6212@kam.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka writes:
> >> Once my current cleanups are done testing I'll poke at this and post a patc
> >OK, thanks!
> >BTW with the patch to avoid removal and -funit-at-a-time on by default,
> >I can get into stage3 but then I get abort in finish_spills :(
> Based on Richard's message, I'm holding off for the moment. There's a
> deeper issue and if I hack this into the useless variable remover we're
> just going to be papering over that issue.
> Can you check your test into the testsuite on the branch? That'll help
> make sure it doesn't get lost :-)
OK, I will try to figure out who and why is producing the cloned
variable and in case I will fail I will commit the testcase alone.
The other misscompilation of GCC seems to be related to aggressive
inlining too. Hope it is related issue as last thing I want to dig into
is missoptimization of reload.