This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa vs lno] who is right?
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org list" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:32:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa vs lno] who is right?
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <086B964A-7EC5-11D8-8C7F-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 20:29, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> ;; basic block 19, loop depth 0, count 0
> ;; prev block 9, next block 20
> ;; pred: 10 [100.0%] (fallthru)
> ;; succ: 28 [50.0%] (true,exec) 29 [50.0%] (false,exec)
> # maxmin_Result_140 = PHI <1(10)>;
> # maxmin_Result_142 = PHI <2(10)>;
> # lsm_tmp.19_144 = PHI <lsm_tmp.19_84(10)>;
> <L28>:;
> if (m__10 == 0) goto <L26>; else goto <L27>;
>
> Is that suppose to be a valid assumption? The dup is created by
> copyrename, and
> I see no code there that's intended to stop dups from being created (on
> the
> contrary, but surely it's unusual for the live ranges to overlap).
>
Are maxmin_Result the same variable? Use -uid to find out. If they
both have the same UID, they're the same and that's a bug. There should
only be a single PHI node per variable in a basic block.
Diego.