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]

Re: [PATCH] Fix the bug to check if lookup_stmt_eh_lp returns positive instead of non-zero


I tried to make a small testcase to reproduce this. But the GCC EH
handling of ERT_MUST_NOT_THROW is not working properly. In my
unittest, it will not set this flag to the destructor... Thus the
problem cannot be reproduced.

Dehao

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to add a test case?
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote:
>> In lookup_stmt_eh_lp, negative return value indicates a MUST_NOT_THROW
>> region index. In this case, we should *not* add an EH edge during VPT.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dehao
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2013-07-08  Dehao Chen (dehao@google.com)
>>
>>         * value-prof.c (gimple_ic): Fix the bug of adding EH edge.
>>
>> Index: gcc/value-prof.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/value-prof.c (revision 200375)
>> +++ gcc/value-prof.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1359,8 +1359,7 @@ gimple_ic (gimple icall_stmt, struct cgraph_node *
>>
>>    /* Build an EH edge for the direct call if necessary.  */
>>    lp_nr = lookup_stmt_eh_lp (icall_stmt);
>> -  if (lp_nr != 0
>> -      && stmt_could_throw_p (dcall_stmt))
>> +  if (lp_nr > 0 && stmt_could_throw_p (dcall_stmt))
>>      {
>>        edge e_eh, e;
>>        edge_iterator ei;


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]