This is the mail archive of the gcc@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] |
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.
They are the same VAR_DECL (pointed to from different SSA_NAMEs). Is it one of the UIDs in there that matters, or the one in the PHI?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |