This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:35:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031106172901.GA11820@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
>Hello,
>
>> >>Lots of changes yesterday produced new regressions in C, C++, Fortran
>> >>and mudflap. I think I know what the mudflap problem is, so I'll take
>> >>care of that. Could you folks take a look at the new regressions and
>> >>see if they're related to your changes?
>> >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030814-4.c scan-tree-dump-times set = -1 0
>> >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030814-5.c scan-tree-dump-times set = -1 0
>> >OK. After looking at these some more. These are failures that are a
>> >combination of the COND_EXPR lowering and some sillyness in PRE.
>
>this patch adds a cfg-aware version of remove_useless_..., thus fixing
>these failures.
>
>Zdenek
>
> * basic-block.h (create_bb): Declaration changed.
> * tree-cfg.c (create_bb): Enable creating a block on specified place.
> (make_blocks, tree_split_edge, tree_make_forwarder_block): Use it.
> (tree_verify_flow_info): Check bbs are in the correct order.
> (cfg_remove_useless_stmts_bb, cfg_remove_useless_stmts): New.
> (remove_unreachable_blocks): Remove missleading comments.
> * tree-flow.h (cfg_remove_useless_stmts): Declare.
> * tree-ssa.c (rewrite_out_of_ssa): Use cfg_remove_useless_stmts instead
> of remove_useless_stmts_and_vars.
So, has the cfg_remove_useless_stmts_bb code actually been bootstrapped and
regression tested?
I installed your latest version in my local tree and it clearly regresses on
the GCC testsuite (doesn't correctly handle nonlocal gotos/abnormal edges)
and it may also be causing a mis-compilation of libjava.
Can you please be more careful about your patches? I've effectively been
unable to move forward on any of my work for nearly 2 weeks now due to
problems with your code and it's getting rather frustrating.
jeff