[Bug tree-optimization/40570] [4.5 Regression] ICE with recursion at -O3

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-29 13:40 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> That only detects direct loops, does it? 

Actually, now  I may understand  but no, it  is exactly the  other way
round.  The patch above only detects indirect loops, when there are at
least two nodes involved.  But that is not necessarily true, as I have
just  discovered the  hard way  when testing  my ipa-cp  stuff...  The
updated patch which I am going to test now therefore is:


2009-07-30  Martin Jambor  <mjambor@suse.cz>

        * ipa-inline.c (cgraph_decide_inlining): Watch out for dead single
        use inlining loops.

        * testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40570.c: New test.


Index: icln/gcc/ipa-inline.c
===================================================================
--- icln.orig/gcc/ipa-inline.c
+++ icln/gcc/ipa-inline.c
@@ -1227,6 +1227,8 @@ cgraph_decide_inlining (void)
              && !node->needed
              && node->local.inlinable
              && node->callers->inline_failed
+             && node->callers->caller != node
+             && node->callers->caller->global.inlined_to != node
              && !gimple_call_cannot_inline_p (node->callers->call_stmt)
              && !DECL_EXTERNAL (node->decl)
              && !DECL_COMDAT (node->decl))
Index: icln/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40570.c
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ icln/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40570.c
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+static int foo(int i);
+
+static int bar(int i) { foo(i); }
+
+static int foo(int i)
+{
+  int j;
+  if (j)
+    FOO(j);
+  return bar(i);
+}
+
+int baz()
+{
+  foo(0);
+  if (baz())
+    return 1;
+  return 0;
+}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40570