[Bug tree-optimization/33434] [4.3 Regression] inlining miscompilation

[razya at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #12 from razya at il dot ibm dot com  2007-10-29 13:00 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] inlining miscompilation

"rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote on 29/10/2007 
14:14:45:

> 
> 
> ------- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de  2007-10-29 12:14 
-------
> Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] inlining
>  miscompilation
> 
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, razya at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
> 
> > ------- Comment #10 from razya at il dot ibm dot com  2007-10-29 
> 12:08 -------
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > Hmm, I have a question about IPA CP, should it call cfgcleanup 
> also?  It does
> > > not fix the problem here but it seems like a good idea.  I can 
> test a patch
> > > which adds the cfgcleanup if it is a good idea.
> > 
> > Hi Andrew
> > IPA CP iterates the whole callgraph, so do you mean cfgcleanup for 
each
> > function?
> 
> Only for the clones it propagated constants into.
> 
> Richard.
> 

IPA CP basically replaces the uses of the (always consatnt)parameter
with the constant.
This can be further folded by the ssa-cp pass on the cloned method. 
So I'm not sure how necessary it is to have a control flow cleanup
at this stage, but maybe I'm wrong...
Razya


> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33434
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33434