[Ping]Two pending IVOPT patches

[Bin.Cheng]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/11/14 02:21, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:02:26PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I reduced the case and attached ivopt dumps with/without the patch.
>>>>> It seems the patch is doing right thing and choosing better
>>>>> candidates, most likely it reveals an existing bug.
>>>>> I am looking into this issue, in the meantime, I am wondering should I
>>>>> apply the patch and file a PR for it, or apply the patch after root
>>>>> causing it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like PR59743 which should be already fixed.
>>
>> Yes, it is.  I just did the test against trunk exactly before Jeff's fix.
>> Then I will apply the patch to trunk.
>>
>> And an additional question: Are these uses before definition always
>> caused by uninitialized use in GCC?
>
> In general, no.
>
> Consider a loop where an object's use is guarded (say it only gets used on
> the 2nd and later iterations) and the set is unguarded.  ISTM that the
> reaching def would be from a later insn in the loop.
I see, thanks for elaborating.
BTW, I applied the approved patch as revision 206552, and there should
be no case violated anymore.

Thanks,
bin

>
> jeff
>



-- 
Best Regards.