This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]Partially fix PR61529, bound basic block frequency
- From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com>
- To: Renlin Li <renlin dot li at arm dot com>, Dehao Chen <dehao at google dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, su at cs dot ucdavis dot edu
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:42:43 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]Partially fix PR61529, bound basic block frequency
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5450B2C0 dot 6040807 at arm dot com>
Hi Renlin,
Are the incoming edge counts or probabilities insane in this case? I
guess the patch is ok if we need to do this to handle those incoming
insanitiles. But I can't approve patches myself.
However, this is a fix to code (r215739) committed after the ICE in
the original bug report and in comment 2 were reported, so I wonder if
it is just hiding the original problem. Originally this was reported
to be due to r210538 - ccing Dehao who was the author of that patch.
Dehao, did you get a chance to look at this bug and see why your
change triggered it? It is possible that Dehao's patch simply
amplified an even further upstream profile insanity, but it would be
good to confirm.
Thanks!
Teresa
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Renlin Li <renlin.li@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a simple patch to fix ICE in comment 2 of PR61529:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
>
> Bound checking code is added to make sure the frequency is within legal
> range.
>
> As far as I have observed, r215830 patch fixes the glibc building ICE. And
> this patch should fix the ICE while building the sample code in comment 2
> using aarch64-none-elf toolchain. Until now, all the ICEs reported in this
> bug ticket should be fixed.
>
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap and regression test have been done, no
> new issue.
> aarch64-none-elf toolchain has been test on the model. No new regression.
>
> Is this Okay for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2014-10-29 Renlin Li <Renlin.Li@arm.com>
> PR middle-end/61529
> * tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (compute_path_counts): Bound path_in_freq.
--
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413